a o 



1>° ^^^^ A* 



^ V * ^ /• cv s s 



°^ * o H o * ; 



3o. 



D 



6 "V 



#1 



o 0^ 




3 o M 




0° 



# is 



'X 



ON THE 



MINISTRY, RITUAL, AND DOCTRINES 



OF THE 

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 



ADDRESSED TO THE 

REV. WE E.WYATT, D.D. 

Associate Minister of St. Paul's Parish, Baltimore, and Protessor of Theology in 
the University of Maryland, 

3fn reptg to a ©ermon 

F.XHIBITIN& SOME Op THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF THE PROTE STANT EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 



BY JARED SPARKS, A. M. 

MINISTER OF THE FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF RALTIMORE. 



TSattimore: 

PUBLISHED BY N. G. MAXWELL, 

NO. 140 BALTIMORE STREET. 

1820. 

JOHN D. TOT, PRTNTEH. 



The Library 
of Congress 



WASHINGTON 



» 



LETTER I. 

On the ministry of the episcopal church. 
Reasons for discussing the subject — Our Saviour gave no instruct 
tions respecting any particular mode of church government — > 
Said nothing of three orders of ministry — The first church at 
Jerusalem was governed by the apostles, elders, and brethren— 
Deacons — The ceremony of ordination was performed by any of- 
ficers of regular standing in the church — Paul and Barnabas 
were ordained by "prophets and teachers" — Opinions of Kui- 
noel, Rosenmuller, Hammond, and Le Clerc — Episcopalians 
fond of quoting the Fathers — Authority of the Fathers — Opi- 
nions of Milton and Jeremy Taylor — Ignatius' epistles — Testi- 
mony of the Fathers against episcopacy — Opinions of Paley, 
Locke, the bishop of Lincoln — Ecclesiastical government essen- 
tially a government of the people. p. 5 

LETTER II. 

On the ritual of the church. 
Baptism — Church form not scriptural— Sign of the cross — Con- 
firmation — These forms nearly the same as in the Catholic 
church— Ordination service — Expediency and utility of forms 
of prayer — Their disadvantages — Origin of Saints' days — Bos- 
suet, p. 53 

LETTER III. 

On the authority of the church in controversies of faith. 
Our Saviour gave no authority to any man, or body of men, to 
judge others for their religious opinions — Christians have no 
other rule of faith than the Bible — Chillingworth — Athanasian 
creed — Historical sketch of the first conventions of the Ame- 
rican episcopal church after the revolution — Injurious ten- 
dency of creeds and articles, both on the clergy and the people 
—Many christians cannot conscientiously worship according to 
lhe liturgy of the church — Inconsistency of holding to the au- 
thority of tradition, and rejecting infallibility— How creeds 
keep schism out of the church— Milton's opinion. p. 79 



iv 



LETTER IV. 
On the doctrinal character of the thirty-nine articles. 
The fundamental doctrines of Calvinism fully set forth in the ar- 
ticles and homilies — Ninth article — Homilies — Seventeenth ar- 
ticle — Bishop Burnet's exposition — Opinions of the first re- 
formers calvinistic — Nowel's catechism — Latimer's sermons — 
Bishop's Bible — Oxford theses — Ridley's letter on election and 
predestination — Lambeth articles — Heylin — University of Cam- 
bridge — Synod of Dort — English delegates were all calvinists — 
Strange doctrine of the eighteenth article — Arminian mode 
of interpreting the articles indefensible — Proposed summary of 
faith. p. 109 

LETTER V. 

Doctrine of the trinity as held by the episcopal church. 
Litany — The worship it inculcates — Doctrine of the trinity 
contained in the articles — Opinions of learned episcopalians 
— There is one true God — The Lord Jesus Christ is not 
this one true God, but a subordinate being — Doctrine of two 
natures— The Holy Spirit is not the true God — Jews had no 
conceptions of any threefold distinction in the Deity—- Nor had 
the disciples of Jesus — Nor did the apostles preach any such 
doctrine after the ascension of Christ — The christians of the 
first century were principally, if not entirely, unitarians — Origin 
of the doctrine of the trinity. p. 142 

LETTER VI. 

Exposition of certain texts of scripture supposed to favour the 
doctrine of the trinity. 

Objections answered — Use of reason — Mysteries — Burgh's Reply 
to Lindsey — Jones on the Trinity — His singular mode of inter- 
preting the scriptures— AH the texts considered in which 
Christ is called, or supposed to be called God — None of these 
prove him to be the Supreme Being — Texts, which are thought 
to ascribe such properties or powers to Christ, as could belong 
only to God — How Christ and the Father are one — Christ 
possessed the attributes of God in a limited degree — God the 
only object of religious homage — Form of baptism — Commu- 
nion of the Holy Spirit — Concluding remarks. p. 195 



Reverend and dear sir, 

When your late discourse on the ministry and 
doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church first ap- 
peared, I engaged with much interest in its perusaL 
The design you proposed of explaining at large the 
principal doctrines, and distinguishing characteristics 
of this church, led me to anticipate much pleasure 
and improvement from the execution. If I have been 
disappointed in some of my expectations, I could not 
fail to be gratified with the spirit of candour and good 
intention which pervades your discourse; and i hope 
I have not read it without profit, if I have without 
conviction. 

In the remarks I am about to make, I have no de- 
sign to point out intentional misrepresentations, or to 
question your motives. Nor is it so much your own 
private opinions with which I am concerned, as the 
doctrines and principles you have attempted to ex- 
plain and defend, and which you represent as form* 
ing the most striking features of the church to which 
you belong. Among these I cannot but think there 
are many errors; and not a few, which can have no 
other than an injurious tendency on the cause of truth 



6 



and a pure religion. As you have thought it your 
duty to undertake a public explanation and defence 
of these doctrines, you cannot be surprised, that 1 
should think it mine, to adopt a similar mode of ex- 
pressing my opinions, and of stating my objections. 

I propose first to consider what you have said on 
the ministry of the Episcopal church; and afterwards 
to examine its ritual and doctrines 

I confess I was not entirely prepared to find, at 
this advanced period of moral and intellectual im- 
provement, any member of a protestant religious so- 
ciety, and especially in this country, who would se- 
riously engage in the attempt to establish the divine 
origin of any particular form of church government, 
and claim its lineal descent from the apostles. I had 
thought the long agitated controversy, about the du 
vine right of episcopacy, was generally allowed to be 
at rest, even in those countries where the civil, as well 
as ecclesiastical interests are intimately concerned in 
the result. In more scholastic times, when the world 
was busied in visions and dreams as unprofitable as 
they were imaginary, this was a theme sufficiently 
obscure to interest the lovers of speculation, and suf- 
ficiently pretending to engage the ambitious. Few at 
this day, 1 supposed, could be found, who would not 
at least consider it a doubtful cause; and still fewer, 
who would think it of sufficient importance publicly 
to engage in its defence. The termination of the con- 
troversy, which was carried on a few years ago in 
New- York on this subject, was not such, one would 
think, as to warrant in the friends of episcopacy a 
desire for its renewal. 



7 



In my estimation the subject in itself is of very little 
importance, because I am convinced, that the grounds 
which you and some others take are unscriptural, 
and consequently untenable. Yet in its consequences 
it is by no means unimportant. If any order of men 
can prove to the satisfaction of the people, that, as an 
order, they are lineal descendants from the apostles, 
and inherit a right to their office by virtue of this de- 
scent, they will almost necessarily possess an in- 
fluence over the minds and opinions of the weak and 
credulous, which, unless their pretensions are well 
founded, they ought not to possess. In religion, if in 
any thing, the mind should be left unshackled. The 
right of private judgment should be held sacred, and 
no improper means should be used to restrain inquiry, 
or enlist credulity. 

As we are all accountable beings, and accountable 
only for ourselves, it is our duty to judge for our- 
selves. But when we are made to believe, that any 
man is endowed with a portion of the inspired intel- 
ligence of the apostles, and is, from the nature of the 
office he sustains, more holy than other men, shall we 
not be in danger of forgetting our obligations to our- 
selves, and be likely in our religious concerns to 
yield up the highest prerogatives of our nature — those 
of thinking, and reasoning, and judging? What merit 
can we claim for thinking and acting right, if we do 
not think and act from our own understanding and 
freedom? To believe articles, because others have be- 
lieved them, can scarcely be called a religious faith. 
That faith can be worth very little, and have little 
efficacy on the life, which is not built on personal 
knowledge and conviction. 



8 



Another evil consequence of believing in a divine- 
ly protected succession of officers in the church, is the 
perpetuity of error. Among protestants I believe 
there are no advocates for infallibility. In the chris- 
tian church, as in every thing else, error has always 
been mingled with truth, and it does not appear, that 
the edicts of emperors, the decrees of councils, or the 
mandates of popes have been able to preserve a pure, 
a uniform, or consistent system of faith. If such a 
system had been transmitted without change from the 
primitive ages, and it were certain, that it is the one 
now adopted by your church; then I should say, your 
scheme of episcopacy is a good one, and the notion 
of its divine origin would add to its value. It would 
be the best means, that could be devised, for perpet- 
uating such a form of faith, and fixing it in the minds 
of the people. 

But is it not obvious, that such a system would 
have a tendency equally strong to perpetuate any 
form of belief, whether false or true? And are not all 
articles of faith, which are not expressed in the lan- 
guage of scripture, subject to be more or less clouded 
with error? If episcopacy be of divine origin, why 
has it not preserved a pure and consistent faith. The 
Greek church is episcopal, and so is the Roman, 
and still they differ in many essential points from 
each other, as well as from the English church And 
does not the episcopal church of the United States 
reject some parts of the old book of Common Prayer, 
which are thought so important in the English church, 
as to be commanded by the laws to be publicly read 
at stated times? Why are the Athanasian creed, and 
some other parts of the liturgy left out, unless it be, 



9 



tbat they are thought unscriptural? The creeds of 
episcopal churches have changed essentially from 
time to time, and at present they differ essentially 
among themselves. It is evident, then, that these 
churches have many errors in their articles of belief, 
and my position is, that the scheme of episcopacy is 
peculiarly calculated to perpetuate these errors. 

There is another consideration of some importance 
to me, and to all, who do not agree with episcopa- 
lians on the subject of church government. If you 
are right, we are all wrong. If, as you say, "to 
the order of bishops alone belongs the power of 
ordaining ministers," then no ministers out of the 
pale of episcopacy have ever been ordained. They 
have usurped an office, which did not belong to them; 
they have undertaken the discharge of duties, for 
which they were not qualified; they have been guilty 
of a rashness, which nothing but their obstinacy could 
account for, or their ignorance excuse. The positive 
ordinances of the church, administered by them, have 
been invalid, and unaccompanied by any of those good 
effects for which they were designed. Baptism per- 
formed by them has had no efficacy; and the celebra- 
tion of the Lord's supper, although done in com- 
pliance with the express commands of our Saviour, 
has been rather a dishonor to his name, than a means 
of procuring spiritual comfort, and the rewards of 
obedience for his followers. These, you will allow, 
are serious considerations, not only to ministers, but 
to the people of their charge, who, if your statement 
be correct, are ignorantly entrusting their spiritual 
concerns to an unauthorized and unprofitable min- 
istry. 



10 



It certainly cannot be thought strange, that any 
clergyman, who is implicated in this charge, should 
feel it his duty to assert and maintain what he con- 
ceives to be his just claims, and show the fallacy of 
such pretensions, as arrogate to any class of men the 
conclusive character of being descendants from the 
apostles. 

The first part of your discourse is taken up in prov- 
ing, that the episcopal church is the only true church, 
that its ministry originated with the apostles, and has 
descended down to the present time, "through an un- 
broken and divinely protected succession/ 7 and that 
ordinations, performed by any other persons than 
bishops, are ''devoid of every degree of validity and 
efficacy in conferring spiritual office and power," 
This shall be the subject of my first letter. 

I agree with you, that "when the gospel enjoins us 
'to be ready always to give an answer to every man 
that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us/ and 
'to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
the saints;' it equally obliges us to ascertain and 
thoroughly understand what the characteristics of that 
faith may be," p. 10. It is true, if we do not ascer- 
tain, we believe without knowledge; and if we do not 
understand, we believe without evidence. Faith 
without knowledge, or evidence, can scarcely be called 
a rational faith; and to believe what we do not under- 
stand, if it be possible, is useless. A religious faith 
is meant to be the guide to a religious life, and if its 
objects are unintelligible, it must indeed be a blind 
guide. The same may be said of the faith of preju- 
dice, or of ignorance. I unite with you cordially in 



11 



the opinion, therefore, that its characteristics should 
be thoroughly understood. 

In the scriptures are contained the only grounds of 
this faith. No mode of church government can be 
considered of divine origin, which is not enjoined in 
the most absolute terms in the scriptures, and no ar- 
ticles of faith can be considered of divine authority, 
which are not there explicitly stated. Possible de- 
signs, and probable inferences are not here to be taken. 
"We must have plain arguments, positive proofs, di- 
rect conclusions, before we can venture to pronounce 
any scheme of government, or any summary of arti- 
cles, to be built on divine authority. The decrees of 
councils, and the traditions of the church can be of no 
weight, and ought not to be quoted on these points, 
while we have the scriptures in our hands. In dis- 
cussing this subject, therefore, I shall not think it 
important to resort to any other authorities, than such 
as are contained in the word of God. The plain 
truths of scripture will always remain the same, what- 
ever may have been, or may still be, the opinions of 
men. 

Y6ur first proposition, in regard to the ministry of 
the episcopal church, is as follows, "This ministry 
consists of three distinct orders, bishops, priests, and 
deacons. From the promulgation of the gospel by 
Jesus Christ, these three orders were apparent, de- 
signated by different names, and possessing and ex- 
ercising different powers," p. 11. 

These orders you represent to have consisted of 
our Saviour, the apostles, and the seventy, who were 
sent forth to preach. Now, is it not a little remark- 
able, if Jesus intended the ministry of his church to 



12 



consist of three orders, and to be transmitted in this 
form through all succeeding ages, that he should not 
have given some directions on so important a subject? 
Is it credible, that, if he intended a particular class 
of persons only should be qualified for administering 
the ordinances of his religion, he would not have given 
some positive instructions in regard to the nature of 
their qualifications? But what is the truth? Not a 
hint is found in the whole four gospels, that he de- 
signed either to establish or perpetuate any such form 
of church government, as the one you have mentioned. 
His last commission to his disciples is given in the fol* 
lowing words; "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt, 
xxviii. 19, 20. He never mentioned three orders, or 
any number of orders of priesthood. He never spoke 
of bishops or deacons. He pointed out no particular 
modes of ordination, nor designated any description 
of persons by whom this ceremony should be per- 
formed. 

"W hat is the natural conclusion, except that he did 
not think it important what mode his followers should 
adopt to preserve the outward forms of his religion, 
provided they were careful to embrace its doctrines, 
imbibe its spirit, and live by its precepts? Whatever 
conclusion we may draw, we must rest in this cer- 
tainty, that our Saviour left no instructions respect- 
ing any particular form of church government. We 
have no other scripture authority on this subject, than 
what we derive from the writings and example of the 



IS 



apostles after the resurrection of Christ. I will nex(r 
examine your statements as drawn from that source. 

You go on to observe, "when our Lord had as* 
cended up on high, the apostles ordained the seven 
deacons to discharge the inferior offices of the minis- 
try, and to preserve the system inviolate" What 
system had been broken? Our Lord had not mention- 
ed any system. And even, if he had commanded his 
disciples to preserve the three orders, which you sup- 
pose he established, would thejf not have chosen 
some one to supply the place, which had become 
vacant? Would it not be most rational to believe, 
if it were intended they should keep the "system in- 
violate," that they would have appointed some person 
to constitute the order, which had ceased, when Christ 
ascended to heaven; and to take charge of the general 
concerns of the church, as he had done while on 
earth? How else could the orders have been regularly 
preserved? But what is the fact respecting the seven 
officers, whom you call deacons? For what purpose 
were they chosen? Instead of being appointed to su- 
perintend the concerns of the church, or indeed to 
supply any order of the ministry, their office does not 
seem to have been designed even for an ecclesiastical 
purpose. 

The reason for this appointment is seen in the fol* 
lowing text. "And in those days, when the number 
of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a mur- 
muring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because 
their widows were neglected in the daily ministra- 
tion." Acts vi. 1. Here the Gentile, or more proper- 
ly the Hellenistic converts complain, that they were 
neglected by the Hebrew officers, whose duty it was 
3 



14 



to provide for the poor.* The apostles immediately 
advised them to choose *a certain number of persons, 
to whom this duty might be entrusted, intimating that 
it was not an office, with which, in the exercise of 
their more important calling, they ought to be trou- 
bled. The people accordingly chose seven from 
among themselves, who were approved and appoint- 
ed to tbeoffice by the apostles. 

But this office did not constitute a new order. 
They were chosen to aid others, who had neglected 
to do their duty. Their appointment was merely a 
matter of expediency, or convenience, to afford more 
extensive relief to the poor, and to prevent the jea- 
lousy and complaints, which had begun to spring up 
among the Hellenistic and Hebrew converts. It was 
in no respect an office for spiritual purposes, and cer- 
tainly cannot be considered as forming a part of the 
christian ministry. One of them, Stephen, is repre- 
sented as "a man full of faith, and of the Holy Spirit;" 
and Philip, in another place, is called an evangelist, 
but in uo connexion with this office. Why you call 
them deacons, I cannot tell, as no such name is given 

* The ''Grecians," or Hellenists, mentioned in the text, were 
probably proselytes to the Jewish religion from among the Greeks, 
or the descendants of such persons, who had embraced Christiani- 
ty. See Kenrick's Exposition, vol, iii. p. 109. and Newcome, in 
loc. It is well known, that these proselytes did not enjoy the 
same civil privileges in Judea, as the native Israelites. This 
caused prejudices to be kindled among them, which were not en- 
tirely removed after their conversion to Christianity. We may 
hence see the reason of the complaint in the text. The Hebrews 
attended to their own poor, and neglected those of the proselyte 
converts. This is the more probable, as Nicolas of Antioch, 
one of the seven officers, was a proselyte. 



15 



them. Neither is the word used in the whole book 
of Acts. 

Let us proceed to your next statement of the orders 
of the ministry. After the appointment of the seven 
officers just mentioned, you say, "there were then the 
apostles and those associated with them, as Titus, 
Timothy, &c. being the first order; the seventy, bi- 
shops, elders, or presbyters, as they were promis- 
cuously called, being the second order; and the dea- 
cons, the third order?' p. 12. Do you mean to consi- 
der Timothy and Titus on an equality with the 
apostles? If a line of distinction existed any where, 
between the different officers of the ministry, could any 
be more strongly marked, than that which separated 
those persons, who had been the companions of our 
Lord, and had been the special messengers of his 
gospel, from all who were afterwards chosen or ap^ 
pointed by them? Were Timothy and Titus ever 
called apostles? Why then should you assign them 
the same rank? If being "associated" with the apos- 
tles entitled them to a place in the first order, why 
were not all bishops, or elders, equally entitled to this 
place? They were all associated with the apostles in 
the great work of preaching, and teaching, and ex- 
tending the kingdom of Christ. In this respect they 
all composed but one order. 

As you allow the words bishop, elder, and presby- 
ter to be used promiscuously for the same thing, 1 
should not stop to prove so obvious a fact, were it 
not denied in the book of "Festivals and Fasts, ,? 
which is a manual in the church, and which you re- 
commend very highly to your readers. In remark- 
ing on the testimony of Ignatius, the author, or editor, 



16 



observes, "from this unequivocal 'testimony it fully 
appears, that in the apostolic age, there were three or- 
ders in the ministry, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, 
distinct and subordinate, deriving their commission 
from Bod, and claiming the reverence and obe- 
dience of the people," p. 33. And the American 
editor also states, in a note, that this "testimony is 
express and decided in support of the superiority of 
the bishops to the presbyters." If you adopt this 
statement, in connexion with your own, you must 
allow at least four orders, instead of three, namely, 
apostles, bishops, presbyters, and deacons. 

That elders, presbyters, and bishops were the 
same, is evident from the twentieth chapter of Acts. 
In this chapter, Paul is said to have "sent from Mi« 
letus to Ephesus, and called the elders of the 
church;" and among his directions, after they were 
collected, he told them, "to take heed unto them- 
selves, and to all the flock over which the Holy 
Spirit had made them overseers," or, as the word is 
every where else rendered, bishops. In the first 
chapter of Titus the words bishop, and elder, are 
used in different places for the same person. Ac- 
cording to Macknight, the name elder (^*s«-«i- eff « $ ) was 
applied in the primitive age, as a general term, to all 
who exercised any sacred office in the church.* 
They seem to have been called elders, because they 
were chosen from among the first converts, or perhaps 
from among those, who were more advanced in age, 
and whose experience and gravity of manners gave 
weight to their character. 



* Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iv. p. 245* 



i7 



We do not read in the scriptures of any distinction 
of rank among these officers; but we are often told of 
their acting in concert with the brethren, with each 
other, and with the apostles. In the discussion about 
circumcision, "the apostles and elders came together 
to consider of this matter." And when "chosen 
men" were sent with Paul and Barnabas to An- 
tioch, they received their commission from the "apos- 
tles, and elders, with the whole church." The 
letter, which they took, commenced as follows; "the 
apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting to 
the brethren, which are of the Gentiles in Autioch, 
and Syria, and Cilicia."* Nothing is more clear, 
than that the government of the church at this time 
rested in a mutual council, composed, not only of the 
apostles and elders, but also of the brethren at large. 
We hear nothing of any particular grades among the 
officers. The apostles themselves assumed no au- 
thority above the elders, or even the brethren. They 
acted only with their advice, and in concert with 
them. Letters were written, and ministers sent out, 
in the name of the whole body of the church. This 
was the mode of government in the first church at Je- 
rusalem, and it appears to have been the same, as far 
as circumstances would permit, in all the primitive 
churches. Where you find any grounds, in the tran- 
sactions of this first church at Jerusalem, for the "three 
distinct orders of bishops, priests, and deacons," I 
cannot tell. 

The deacons, who compose your third order, are 
not mentioned in the proceedings of this church. But 



* Acts xv. 6, 22, 23. 



18 



is it probable, if sucb an order of the ministry then 
existed, that it would have been overlooked in pro- 
ceedings so important as these, in which even the 
brethren at large were allowed to take an active part? 
I confess I can discover nothing in the account of the 
church at Jerusalem, nor in any part of the New Tes- 
tament, which would lead me to suppose the deacons, 
in the time of the apostles, sustained any office, which 
should entitle them to be considered a distinct order 
of the ministry. The word, in its English dress, is 
used only three times, and in no instance with refer- 
ence to any definite office, or duties. In the original 
use of this word in the New Testament, it has a va- 
riety of meanings. Its radical signification is ser- 
vant, and it is thus used for the most part in the gos- 
pels. In the epistles it generally means what we un- 
derstand by minister, and sometimes magistrate. 
Rom. xiii. 4. Paul speaks of himself and brethren 
being made "able ministers (deacons) of the new cove- 
nant.^ "Wherefore I was made a minister (deacon) 
according to the gifts of the grace of God." "Who 
then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but able ministers 
(deacons) by whom ye believed?"* Quotations of a 
similar kind might be multiplied; but these are suffi- 
cient to show, that the term deacon, instead of de- 
signating a particular order of men, was frequently 
applied to the apostles themselves. The apostles 
were servants, deacons, or ministers of Jesus Christ. 

* The word 2W«>io$ is used in thirty places in the New Tes- 
tament. In eight of these places, it is rendered, in our common 
version, servant, and seems to have precisely the same meaning 
as ^« A« 5. In nineteen places it is rendered ministers and in 
three only it is translated deacon. 



19 



St. Paul writes to the "bishops and deacons" at 
Phillippi, as it is expressed in our common version. 
But the Syriac translator renders it "elders and min- 
isters,"* and this translation is in accordance with the 
general use of these words, as is seen by the above 
quotations. In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle 
describes the qualifications of deacons, but nothing is 
said in regard to the nature of their office. These 
qualifications are almost precisely the same, as those 
of a bishop, which are mentioned in the same place. 
In the letter to Titus, instead of deacons, he calls them 
"aged men;" and I can find no passage in scripture, 
from which it would appear, that these men were dis- 
tinguished, in respect to their office, from the elders, 
or presbyters. And whatever the office of a deacon 
may have been, it is evident, that it was not appro- 
priated to a particular order of men; for Paul, Apol- 
los, Epaphras, and the magistrates, are called dea- 
cons. 

The opinion, which was adopted in some of the 
earlier churches, and which is still retained in yours, 
respecting the office of deacons, seems to have origi- 
nated in a fancied resemblance between the deacons 
mentioned in the first epistle to Timothy, and the 
seven officers appointed by the apostles, soon after 
the ascension of our Lord. But we have already 
seen what were the duties of those men. We have 
seen, that they were never called deacons, and that 
their office was wholly of a temporal nature. 

Among the duties, which you enumerate as belong- 
ing to the office of a deacon, are the following. "In 



* Senioribus et ministris. 



%0 



addition to their care of the poor, the deacons officiated 
in distributing the sacramental emblems; they were 
employed to preach and baptize; they were set apart 
to their office by prayer and imposition of hands; and 
they were forbidden to follow any secular employ- 
ments," p. 12 In what part of the scriptures yon 
find any of these characteristics of the office of a dea- 
con, I cannot conceive. After a careful examination, 
I do not find a single text, which would imply either 
directly or remotely, that the deacons mentioned in 
the epistles to the Philippians and to Timothy, were 
especially designed for any of these duties. The 
truth is, nothing is said in scripture about the nature 
of the office, or about the duties of any class of men de- 
signated by the title of deacons. As this name was 
often applied to the apostles, bishops, and presby- 
ters, it is not unlikely, that it was at first used as a 
general title to denote a teacher of the gospel. 

In writing to the Ephesians, St. Paul says of 
Jesus, that he "gave some, apostles; and some, pro- 
phets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and 
teachers." Eph. iv. 11. What reason can be given, 
why each of these should not be considered a distinct 
order, as well as either of the three you propose? 
Schleusner, in conformity with Eu*ebius, represents 
the evangelists as sustaining an office wholly of a spi- 
ritual nature.* Their name implies a teacher of the 
gospel. They were employed to aid the apostles in 
establishing churches. It was their custom to travel 
from place to place. In this respect, they differed 
essentially from presbyters, who were usually con- 



* Schleus. Lex. in verb. Evayyt a. 



m 

fined to the same church. There is just as muck 
reason for considering them a distinct order, and also 
the prophets, pastors, and teachers, as either of the 
three in your catalogue. Instead of three orders, 
you would then have six, besides deacons, namely, 
apostles, prophets, bishops, or presbyters, evangel- 
ists, pastors, teachers. And f am convinced, as 
strong arguments may be advanced for adopting this 
number, as the one you have chosen. 

Another point, which you state with great confi- 
dence, is, that "it has been the faith of the universal 
church, without exception, until the period of the re- 
formation, that to the order of bishops alone belongs 
the power of ordaining ministers." In the "universal 
church," I suppose you will embrace the first church 
of the apostolic age. Not only so, I suppose you will 
allow this to be the only authentic source, to which you 
can go for information on this subject. What our 
Saviour taught, and the apostles are said to have 
practised, will be good authority. This is the only 
authority on which we can with safety rely, notwith- 
standing what may have been the "faith of the uni- 
versal church, without exception," since that time. 

As Christ left no instructions about any particular 
kind of ministry in the church, so there are no words 
of his recorded on the subject of ordination. This 
alone is enough to prove, that the manner, in which 
it is performed, cannot be a thing of so much impor- 
tance as you would imply, when you say, that ordi- 
nations performed by any other, than a bishop, 
"would be devoid of every degree of validity and 
efficacy, in conferring spiritual office and power." 
What was the practice in the time of the apostles? 
4 



Barnabas and Saul were ordained by ^certain £ru* 
phets and teachers at Autioch." Acts xiii. 1. Here, 
it seems, even the apostle to the Gentiles was or- 
dained by officers of the church, who are not em- 
braced in either of your orders of the 'ministry. TK 
mothy was ordained by "the laying on of the hands 
of the presbytery.' 7 1 Tim. iv. J 4. What can 
this mean, except, that the ceremony was performed 
by the elders, or presbyters, in a body? 

On this subject, the examples of Timothy and Titus 
are usually quoted by the abettors of episcopacy with 
much apparent triumph. It is said, that they were 
commissioned by St. Paul, the one to be bishop of 
Ephesus, and the other to he bishop of Crete, and 
that to them was entrusted the sole power of ordina- 
tion. It may first be remarked, that neither Timothy, 
nor Titus, is called a bishop in the scriptures. The 
postscripts, in which this title is given to them, 
were added to the epistles nearly four hundred years 
after they were written. No instructions were given, 
to Timothy about ordinations, and he seems to have 
remained but a little more than a year at Ephesus. 
So far from being a bishop, St, Paul expressly 
charges him "to do the work of an evangelist." 

Paul writes to Titus, "for this cause left I thee in 
Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things, 
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as 
I had appointed thee." Tit. i. 5. In remarking on 
this text, you speak of the "acknowledged fact, that 
there were already many elders in those churches.'* 
Where is this fact acknowledged? Certainly not in 
the scriptures. On the contrary, before Titus went to 
Crete, as far as we know, there were neither elders^ 



28 

nor churches in the island. We learn no particulars of 
this country from the New Testament, till the voyage 
of St. Paul to Rome, when the vessel, in which he 
sailed, is said to have put into a port in Crete. In- 
habitants of Crete are mentioned among those, who, 
on the day of pentecost, received the gift of the Holy 
Spirit. These were Jews, who, after they returned, 
probably instructed the people in what they had 
learnt, but, as was customary with the Jewish con- 
verts, mingled many errors, in regard to the Mosaic 
institutions, with the christian doctrines. When St. 
Paul was there, finding what errors and evil prac- 
tices they had fallen into, and that they had no au- 
thorized or well informed teachers among them, 
and being a prisoner, could not himself travel and 
preach, he left Titus, as he says, "to set in order the 
things, that were wanting, and to ordain elders." I 
am aware it is not particularly mentioned, that Titus 
accompanied St. Paul on this voyage; but neither 
have we any account, that the apostle ever again 
visited Crete. Dr. Paley thinks Titus was left in 
Crete by St. Paul, two years afterwards, on his 
returu from Rome; but as there is no account of 
any such voyage, he acknowledges his opinion to 
be hypothetical.* Even if this were correct, it would 
not affect the argument. The object for which Titus 
was left would be the same. 

From all that is known, therefore, there is no evi* 
deuce of there being either elders or churches in 
Crete, before Titus visited the island; and a very 
strong probability that there were none. The office 



* Horae Paulinae, chap. xiii. 



24 



of Titus seems to have been, in every respect, that of 
an evangelist. He was commissioned to travel from 
city to city, to form churches, and appoint suitable 
officers. Nor does it follow from any thing in his 
commission, that after he had organized churches, 
and ordained elders, these elders could not ordain 
others, in the same way as Paul and Barnabas had 
been ordained by "prophets and teachers," and Ti- 
mothy by the presbytery. In short, it appears to me, 
if any thing can be proved by direct scriptural tes- 
timony, it is, that the ceremony of ordination was 
performed indiscriminately by apostles, prophets, 
presbyters, evangelists, teachers, — and for any thing 
that is known to the contrary, by all officers regular- 
ly appointed in the churches. 

In examining the subject of the first part of your 
discourse, I have thus far confined myself to the sa- 
cred writings, because I think these constitute the 
only authority, on which we ought to rely, for the 
proof of the divine right of any institution. From 
this examination, I am convinced that the scriptures 
teach a doctrine on this subject, completely at va- 
riance with the one you have attempted to defend. 
By way of recapitulation, I will endeavour to express 
the grounds of this conviction, in as few words as 
possible. 

First, our Saviour left no instructions in regard to 
the nature or form of the ministry; he never spoke of 
three orders, or any number of orders; he gave no di- 
rections about the ceremony of ordination, nor did he 
assign the duty of performing it to any particular 
class of men. Secondly, the apostles said nothing 



25 

of any number of orders in the ministry, nor have 
they left any rules or instructions on the subject of 
ordination. Thirdly, the first church at Jerusalem 
was governed by the apostles, elders, and brethren 
in concert. The apostles assumed no authority 
above the elders, nor the elders above the people. 
Fourthly, it is no where said in the whole New Tes- 
tament, that the duty of conferring ordination was 
confined to any particular order of the ministry; but 
on the contrary, several examples are on record, 
which go to prove, that this ceremony was performed 
by any officer or officers of regular standing in the 
church. Fifthly, Timothy and Tims are never call- 
ed bishops. Timothy is expressly called an evan* 
gelist; and the duties of Titus were such, as are 
usually assigned to an evangelist. Sixthly, the per- 
sons who were appointed by the apostles to assist iii 
providing for the poor, and whom you call the "seven 
deacons," are never designated by this name in the 
scriptures. Their office was wholly of a temporal 
nature, and therefore could make no part of the min^ 
istry. Seventhly, the word deacon seems to have 
been applied at first as a general term, for a servant 
in the cause of the gospel, a minister, or teacher; and 
if it was afterwards appropriated to any particular 
office, no mention is made in the writings of the apos- 
tles respecting the nature or design of such an office. 
No instance is recorded, in which deacons, as officers 
of an exclusive character, are said to have taken a 
part in the government or concerns of any church. 
Lastly, the same reasons, by which you establish 
three orders in the ministry., would prove the ©x- 



26 

isteuce of at least six or seven, as apostles, bishops, 
prophets, evangelists, elders, teachers, deacons.* 

I should not deem it necessary to dwell on this 
topic any longer, had you not mentioned other testi- 
mony, besides that of the scriptures, in support of 
your views of episcopacy. I do not consider this tes- 
timony of any value in deciding; the main question of 
divine right; but as you have introduced it at some 
length I will not pass it over. The testimony 

* The celebrated commentator and critic, Kuinoel, in his com- 
mentary on the Acts of the Apostles, published about two years 
ago at Leipsic, has entered at some length into the discussion of 
this subject. After proving, that "lidem, qui in libris N. T. vo- 
eantur e^-<<r«o^-«< et Koi^eier, appellantur etiam TrgerpvregetS' 
which be says some have rashly denied, (quod temere non- 
nulli negarunt, atque de discrimine episcoporum et presbytero- 
rum in primitiva ecclesia hallucinati sunt,) he goes on to ob- 
serve, that the christians, in the time of the apostles, established in 
the church a form of government and discipline similar to what 
prevailed in the Jewish synagogues It was the duty of the rulers 
of the synagogue to preserve discipline, superintend the external 
concerns of the respective societies over which they were placed, 
and also to teach and explain the law. In the same manner, it 
was the duty of the bishops, or presbyters, to superintend the go- 
vernment of the church, and teach the doctrines of the christian 
religion. They were both governors and teachers. The rulers of 
the synagogues were confined to particular societies; and so were 
the first bishops, or presbyters. No one had any control, except 
in the single society over which he had been appointed. "Episcopi 
singulis christianorum coetibus praefecti erant." 

To show this resemblance still more strongly, Kuinoel further 
remarks, that the rulers of the synagogues were called D^pt» 
^£ct/3vt£^o<, and quotes Philo and Vitringa to prove, that their 
office must have been the same as that of the first christian bishops. 
Vid. Kuinoel Comment, in Act. Apos. Leip. 1818, p. 681. 



27 



of all succeeding ages can never prove that to be a 
divine, positive institution in religion, which is not 
sanctioned, nay, commanded in the records of divine 
truth. 

It is remarked of almost all the writers in favour of 
episcopacy, that they show a singular fondness for 
the ancient Fathers. They appeal to them with 
scarcely less confidence, than to the sacred writers 
themselves, and seem to think that whatever is doubt- 
ful in scripture, is fully settled by a quotation from 

Rosenmuller advances a similar opinion; and adds, that pres- 
byters and bishops, in the time of the apostles, were the same; 
but at te i wards it became customary to call any person, who was 
eminent among them, bi$hop,hy way of distinction. "Qui in ordine 
presbyterorum primas tenebat, xocr' efo%j;v dicibatur o en-trxc- 
iros." Vid. Rosenmul. Scholia in Act. Apos. c. xx. 28; et in 
Epist. ad Phiiipp. c. i. 1. 

Hammond supports the episcopal hypothesis in its fullest ex- 
tent. He puts ali the Fathers in requisition, and quotes profusely 
from the beginning of Ignatius to the end or Theophylact. He 
maintains, that Timothy and Titus were metropolitans, and proves 
it by the testimony of Theodoretand Theophylact. He also proves 
from Eusebius,that the hundred cities of Crete were converted to 
the christian faith by Paul himself, although Eusebius declares, that, 
for his history of those times, he depends solely on the scriptures. 

Le Clerc, in his reply to Hammond, says that Grotius, and 
others, who found no authority in scripture for these distinctions 
between metropolitans, bishops, and presbyters, have much more 
correct notions. "Nor," he adds, "can we receive as proof the 
authority of ancient Fathers, who wrote more after the manner of 
their age, than from any certain knowledge; nor would I say, that 
bishops, or presbyters, are always to be trusted, when they give 
evidence in their own cause." Nec potest probar- amtoritate 
scriptorum se-iuentium saeculorum, &c. Vid. Nov. Test. Ham- 
mond, et Cleri. Adnotationes in Act. c. xx. 28, et Philip- 

Pi- i t- 



28 

some writer, who lived as Ions; as:o as the third er 
fourth century. But let it be asked, since we have 
the original book in our posession, to which they all 
referred, what occasion have we to consult any other 
authority? These Fathers lived in a rude age, and 
wrote on subjects quite different from any, which are 
introduced into modern controversy; their writings 
have been corrupted, and many forgeries have been 
sent out under their names; they have often written 
with reference to opinions unknown to us, and fre- 
quently contradicted one another. Can we believe 
the testimony of such writers to be of the least value, 
when the divine origin, and divinely protected sue- 
cession of a religious institution is in question? 
Daille, in his celebrated work on the right use of the 
Fathers, has stated seventeen reasons, why these wri- 
ters are not to be implicitly relied on, each of which 
is enough to invalidate their authority, in a question 
of so much importance. 

We find a similar opinion in authors of much more 
eelebrity, than Daille. The following is from Mil- 
ion. "Whatever time, or the heedless hand of blind 
chance, hath drawn from old to this present, in her 
huge drag-net, whether fish or seaweed, shells or 
shrubs, unpicked, unchosen — those are the Fathers."* 
Jeremy Taylor, in his admirable treatise on the Li- 
berty of Prophecying, says, "there are some, that 
think they can determine all questions in the world, 
by two or three sayings of the Fathers, or by the con- 
sent of so many as they will please to call a concur- 
rent testimony; but this consideration will soon be at 



* Prose Works, vol. i. p. 67. 



29 



an end: for if the Fathers, when they are witnesses of 
tradition, do not always speak truth, as it happened 
in the case of Papias, and his numerous followers, 
for almost three ages together, then is their testimo- 
ny more improbable, when they dispute or write com- 
mentaries."* Such were the opinions of men, who 
knew as much on this subject, perhaps, as any other; 
and of such men as Milton and Jeremy Taylur. 

Your testimony from this source- you take from 
the book of Festivals and Fasts, and begin by re- 
marking, that "those denominations, which contro- 
vert the divine institution of episcopacy, and consi- 
der it the invention of an age subsequent to th&t of the 
apostles, have never been able to agree upon any one 
period, in which it could, even in their opinion, have 
probably originated." p. 39. Admitting this to be 
true, what weight has it in the argument? It is not 
of the least consequence, when, or how, or where, 
episcopacy commenced, since it is proved not to have 
been instituted by our Saviour, nor adopted by tho 
apostles. 

Your first extracts to prove the divine right of epis- 
copacy, by the evidence of the Fathers, are quoted 
from Ignatius, who lived at the close of the first 
century. Was it not very well known to you, that 
the epistles attributed to him, and from which this 
testimony is taken, have been considered by very 
learned men, as spurious? No one has attempted 
lately to defend the genuineness of all the epistles, 
which were formerly ascribed to Ignatius. Five, at 
least, have been given up; and the seven, which re- 

* Chap. viii. on the Inconsistencies of the Fathers. 
5 



30 



main, are universally allowed, even by those who are 
most zealous in proving them genuine, to be disfigur- 
ed by interpolations. Le Clerc, who is fully persuad- 
ed, that some ot the epistles attributed to Ignatius 
were actually written by him, acknowledges, that 
some are entirely spurious, and others interpolated.* 
Of those, which are considered as having some claims 
to authenticity, we have two copies. One is called 
the larger, and the other the smaller. Each of these 
copies has its advocates; but whether the larger copy 
was made by adding to the smaller, or the smaller 
by abridging the larger, has not been ascertained. 
Each party in the controversy adopts the one, which 
is most agreeable to his favorite tenets. f It is no 
place here to go into the controversy; nor do I wish 
to do any thing more, than simply to state the fact of 
such a controversy having existed, and of these epis 
ties being, at best, of too doubtful a character to be 
quoted as authority on any point of doctrine. As 
your discourse was intended for persons, who could 
not be supposed to be very familiarly acquainted with 
disputed points of criticism, if you thought proper to 
bring testimony from this source, it would certainly 
not have been amiss, to let them know its doubtful 
character, and the degree of credit, which it ought to 
receive. 

The American editor of the work, which you 
quote, has given a very partial view of this subject. 
After mentioning "that some persons have attempted to 
disprove the genuineness of these epistles/' he adds, 
"it has been fully vindicated by archbishop Wake, 

* Ars Crit. vol. ii. p. 331. Ed. Lugd. Bat. 1778. 
t See General Repos. and Review, vol. i. p. 50. 



31 



and bishop Pearson." What is the fact? These wri- 
ters both reject some of the epistles, which have been 
attributed to Ignatius, and allow the others to have 
been mutilated. They maintain the genuineness 
of the less copy, but they do not pretend that it 
has not been interpolated. Archbishop Wake sup- 
poses the text, from which he translated, to be the 
purest that had been published, but does not at- 
tempt to defend it as immaculate, tie receives none 
but the seven epistles; and the evidence of the 
genuineness of these, he draws principally from the 
reputed epistle of Polycarp, which is scarcely better 
authenticated^ than the epistles of Ignatius* He also 
relies implicitly on the authority of Eusebius, who 
lived in the fourth century, and who speaks on this 
subject more from tradition, than actual knowledge.* 
Many instances of interpolation in the received 
epistles, were long ago discovered by archbishop 
Usher. These had refereuce principally to disputed 
poiuts of doctrine and church government, and were 
no doubt inserted by designing transcribers into early 
copies. I shall have occasion to speak of some of 
these in another place. If interpolations have been 
found, even in what are called the genuine epistles of 
Ignatius, we want no stronger proof, that others 
might still be found, if we had access to earlier and 
more correct manuscripts. This consideration, to- 
gether with the doubts hanging over the whole subject, 
is sufficient to destroy the authority of these epistles, 
especially in every thing relating to the controversies 
of the church. 

* See archbishop Wake's Preface and Introduction to his trans- 
lation of the Apostolic Fathers. 



82 

Herbert Marsh, now bishop of Landaff, in bis 
notes to Michaelis, after stating that there is good 
reason for suspecting the authenticity of all the wri- 
tings ascribed to the Apostolic Fathers, among which 
are the epistles of Ignatius, observes, "This at 
least is certain, that passages are found in these 
writings, which from the nature of the subjects could 
not have existed in the first century, and if they 
prove not the whole to be spurious, they prove at 
least, that these writings have been so interpolated, 
as to make it difficult to distinguish what is ge- 
nuine from what is false."* The celebrated srholar, 
Sender, who, according to Dr. Marsh, "has made a 
more particular study of ecclesiastical history per- 
haps, than any man that ever lived," rejects these 
writings entirely as fabrications of a later age, than 
that in which they are pretended to have been writ- 
ten.f 

In regard to the testimony of the later Fathers, it 
should be remembered, when they speak of bishops, 
they do not mean the same kind of officers, as in 
modern times constitute the first order of episcopacy. 
There is no doubt, that soon after the age of the 
apostles, when chnrches became very large, it was 
found convenient to have presiding officers. When 
public business was transacted, such as the ordination 
of presbyters, or the chusing of officers, it was natu- 
ral, that some person should be appointed to preside. 
In cities, where several churches had sprung up, it 

* Michaelis, Note to vol. i. c. ii. § 6. 

t See Gen. Rep. vol. i. p. 55;, where the opinion of Sender on 
this subject, may be found translated from his Novae Observa- 
tiones. 



S3 

was convenient to have a standing president to pre- 
serve the harmony, and superintend the concerns of 
the whole. This president would be likely to be se- 
lected from among the more distinguished bishops, or 
presbyters. In length of time, the name bishop was 
confined exclusively to this officer. But it is to be ob- 
served, that a bishop had no more than a parochial 
authority. The president of a single church was 
called a bishop, as well as the president of a larger 
number. These presidents, or bishops, were first 
chosen by the congregations at large, and ordained, 
or inducted into their offices, by the presbyters. 

Irenaeus, whose testimony you bring in favour of 
episcopacy, was ordained, according to Basnage, by 
presbyters only, even after the distinctions between 
bishops and presbyters began to exist; and this is al- 
lowed to have been the custom of the church of Alex- 
andria, during the three first centuries. At length 
it became customary to invite neighboring bishops to 
aid in this ceremony; and thus, by degrees, arose the 
three orders in the ministry, which was afterwards 
called an episcopacy. 

To make any use of the testimony of the Fathers, 
we must know to what stage this government had 
advanced, at the time when any one of them lived. 
We must know the country in which they lived, and 
the extent of the church of which they speak. The 
bishop of a single church was much the same, as the 
minister of a single parish at the present day. Cy- 
prian, bishop of Carthage, had charge of only one 
congregation, and in his epistles he speaks of the 
people joining with him in the discipline of his 
church, and intimates, that the choice of pastors 



3* 



rested with the people.* Jerome, who wrote at the 
beginning of the fifth century, says, in his remarks 
on the epistle to Titus, "among the ancients, priests 
and bishops were the same, hut by degrees, the care 
of a church was given to one person, in order to pre- 
vent dissention. And again, "let the bishops know, 
that they are above the priests, more by custom, than 
by the appointment of Christ;" and further, "at the 
beginning, churches were governed by the common 
council of presbyters, like an aristocracy; but after- 
wards, the superintendency was given to one of the 
presbyters, who was then called the bishop, and who 
governed the church, but still with the council of the 
presbyters."! 

Archbishop King, who examined this subject tho- 
roughly, in his inquiry into the constitution of the 
primitive church, says, "a bishop preached, baptized, 
and confirmed, so did a presbyter; a bishop excom* 
municated, absolved, and ordained, so did a presby- 
ter; whatever a bishop did, the same did a presbyter; 
the particular acts of their office were the same "J 
Origen mentions bishops, but does not allow, that their 
authority extended beyond the congregation over 
which they were placed; and all, that Tertulliaa 
says on this subject, is as applicable to parochial, 
as to diocesan, bis hops. § 

From this view of the testimony of the Fathers, 
it is evident, that it affords no proof of the institution 

* Doddridge's Lectures, Part IX. prop. 150. 
t Opera, vol. vi p. 198. Anecdotes, p. 24. 54. See Corruptions 
of Christianity, vol. ii.p. 240. 
% Chap. vi. 

§ Doddridge, ubi supra. 



35 



of episcopacy in the primitive ages. Tf we are to 
judge from the above quotations, it has decidedly 
a contrary bearing. If you can prove from the same 
Fathers, or from others, that the present form of 
episcopacy actually existed in the first ages of Chris- 
tianity, it will be, to say the most, a very weak ar- 
gument in favor of the cause. It will show them to 
contradict one another, and themselves, and what 
can more entirely invalidate their authority? 

In many places where there was but one church, 
bishops were parochial ministers, and nothing more; 
in other places, where several churches were united, 
bishops had a sort of presiding charge over the whole, 
with presbyters to aid them; but they discharged no 
duties, in the immediate service of the church, which 
did not equally belong to the presbyters. In their 
ecclesiastical functions, they were the same as pres* 
byters. Deacons, for a long time, seem to have 
taken no part iu the ministry, but to have been ap- 
pointed to manage the temporal concerns of religious 
societies. The churches were not all uniform in their 
mode of government. Some churches gave more 
authority to their bishops than others; and some re- 
tained their primitive usages longer than others. 
Doddridge observes, that "the power of the bishops 
seems to have prevailed early in Rome; that of the 
presbytery at Alexandria; and at Carthage, such a 
discipline as comes nearest to what is now called 
congre Rationalists "* The churches at Alexandria 
and Carthage gradually declined, and the Roman 
increased. The church of England, and the episco- 



* Lectures, vol. ii. p. 354. 



36 



pal church of this country, it seems, are a branch of 
this Roman church. 

Since this is the state of the evidence afforded by 
the Fathers, how do you prove your position, "that 
when the church of England undertook to throw off 
particular doctrines and ceremonies of the church of 
Home, which she considered as neither taught in 
scripture, nor consistent with purity, she retained, un- 
altered, the three orders of the ministry, as mani- 
festly belonging to the days of the apostles; and the 
Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, 
received since the independence of this country, the 
order of bishops, through an unbroken and divinely 
protected succession?" p. 17. 

How will you prove, in the first place, that the 
Roman church itself was established on a regular 
succession? You will hardly rely on the unauthen- 
ticated account, that the apostle Peter lived some 
time at Rome, and at length was crucified there, 
which even by Origen is considered only a tradition. 
How do you know, that the bishop, in whom the Ro- 
man church originated, was not ordained by presby- 
ters, as it is certain such ordinations were common? 
To me this appears quite as probable as any other 
supposition. How is it ascertained, that even the first 
bishop of Rome was ordained by a bishop, and not by 
presbyters? Eusebius himself, who is considered the 
highest authority on this subject, acknowledges, that 
it is no easy thing to give any further account of the 
successors to the apostles in the government of the 
churches, than what is found in the writings of St. 
Paul.* And is it not still an unsettled question in 

* Euseb. Eccles. Hist. I. ii. c. xxxv. 1. iii. c. iv. as quoted by 
Doddridge, Lec, vol. ii. p. 345, 355. 



37 



history, who were the first seven bishops of Rome? 
Such then is the dark and uncertain evidence of the 
divine succession of the stock from which the English 
church sprang. 

In the next place, is it certain, that the English 
bishops can be traced up to the church of Rome? In 
the opinion of Dr. Doddridge, it has been very satis- 
factorily proved by Mr. Jones, that, in the year 668, 
the regular succession of bishops had become nearly 
extinct. Many persons about this time were ordain- 
ed by Aidan and Finan, who were monks of the 
Scottish monastery of Columbanus, and only pres- 
byters. They were afterwards made bishops by the 
northern princes, whom they converted, but not by 
a regular episcopal ordination. Many others were 
made bishops from among their converts, but with 
nothing more than presbyterian ordination. Is it not 
more than possible, that the English succession is 
derived from this source? 

Again, the validity of archbishop Parker's conse- 
cration, in the time of queen Elizabeth, is well known 
to be, at least, very questionable; yet this is the ori- 
gin of the present English succession. Edward the 
sixth abolished the Romish form of ordination, and 
substituted a new one in its place, which is still re- 
tained in the church. The old form was restored by 
queen Mary, but rejected again by Elizabeth, and 
that of Edward adopted When Parker was nomi- 
nated to be archbishop of Canterbury, in 1559, she 
issued a commission to certain bishops to perform the 
ceremony of consecration, according to the prescribed 
form. Some of them refused to comply, alleging that 
such a consecration would not be valid. She issued 
6 



38 



another commission to such persons, as she knew 
would not refuse, but whose episcopal authority was 
much to be doubted. The catholics immediately 
disputed this consecration, and have almost univer- 
sally denied its validity. They profess to have 
proved, that Barlow, the consecrating bishop, was 
never himself consecrated. They say, that no record 
of this transaction was found or cited, till more than 
fifty years afterwards, when the Lambeth Register 
was first quoted. And even this register entirely 
destroys the validity of the consecration, by showing 
it to have been performed according to kiug Edward's 
ordinal, which was not consistent with any former 
usage of the church. 

I shall not pretend to decide on these objections of 
the catholics; but if well founded, they must prove 
the invalidity of Parker's consecration, and the weak- 
ness of all pretensions in the church of England to a 
divine succession. 

To my mind, these objections, and others, briefly 
and clearly stated in the memoir of the Abbe Renau- 
dot, are convincing. Some of them are partially re- 
moved in Courayer's elaborate answer, but he has by 
no means cleared the subject of difficulties; and when 
it is known that he was an "apostate monk," as the 
catholics call him, who wrote to gain the favour of an 
English prince; we can have little respect for his can- 
dour, or regard for his authority. 

Episcopacy was abolished by an act of parliament, 
in Cromwell's time. All ordinations were then pres- 
byterian, and how is it ascertained, that the succes- 
sion of episcopal ordinations was not then broken, or 
at least, that some persons were not afterwards con- 



30 



secrated bishops, who, during this period, had re- 
ceived only presbyterian ordination? 

Moreover, it has been the opinion of many of the 
most eminent divines and learned men of the church 
of England, that the superiority of bishops to pres- 
byters was nothing more than a human institution, 
and consequently, that ordinations by either was 
valid. 

To the middle of the seventeenth century, it was 
the prevailing sentiment of many distinguished di- 
vines, that bishops had no power of ordination or 
jurisdiction, except in conjunction with the presby- 
ters. In an article of the treaty of Uxbridge, (1644) 
it was declared, "that the bishops shall exercise no 
act of jurisdiction or ordination, without the consent 
and counsel of the presbyters"* Bishop Leighton 
disclaimed all pretences to the sole power of bishops. 
One of the articles which he proposed to the dissent- 
ing brethren, in the conference at Paisley, runs thus; 
"all church affairs shall be managed in presbyteries 
and synods, by the free vote of the presbyters, or the 
major part of them "\ Dr Burnet, in speaking of the 
power of a bishop, says, "ordinations ought not to be 
so performed by him, as to exclude the assistance and 
concurrence of presbyters, bot h in the previous trial, 
and in the ordination itself."! And even Hooker ad- 
mits, that "bishops, in the church of Christ, have such 
authority, as both to direct other ministers, and to see 
that every one of them should observe that, which. 

* Bibliotheca Regia, London, 1659, part i. § 4. 

t Case of Accommodation, 1671, p. 2. 

± Gilbert Burnet's Conferences, Glasgow, 1673, p. 105. 



40 



(heir common consent hath agreed on."* These quota- 
tions may be seen at large, with their references, in 
the fourth chapter of Sage's Vindication. In the 
same place may be seen references to a great many 
other authors, of the highest authority, who express 
the same sentiments. Among others are Andrews, 
Whitgift, Chillingworth, Usher, Hall, Barrow, Stil- 
lingfleet, Sherlock, Parker, Taylor, Hammond. 

Archbishop Bancroft believed in the validity of 
ordinations by presbyters. The following is from 
Hickman. 

"Some that had been ordained by mere presbyters, 
offered themselves in king James's time, to be con- 
secrated bishops in the church of Scotland. Dr. An- 
drews, bishop of Ely, moved this question; whether 
they should not first be episcopally ordained presby- 
ters, that they might be capable of being admitted to 
the order of bishops? But archbishop Bancroft, a 
most rigid asserter of episcopacy, answered; there 
was no need of it since ordination by presbyters was 
valid."-\ 

From these facts, it must certainly be admitted, 
that in some periods of the English church, ordina- 
tion by presbyters has been considered valid; and 
how is it known, that the succession of office may not 
be traced back from the bishops of the present day, 
to those who had been thus ordained? And how can 

* Ecclesiastical Polity, b. vii. § 6. 

t Peirce's Vindication, p. 167. How does the whole mass of 
testimony, which has here been given, agree with the singular as- 
sertion in the book of Festivals and Fasts, that "throughout the 
universal church for fifteen hundred years, no instance occurs of 
ordination by presbyters, that was considered valid!" p. 45. 



41 



you possibly reconcile the citations, which have been 
made from some of the principal Fathers, with your 
declaration, "that it has been the faith of the univer- 
sal church, without exception, until the period of the 
reformation, that to the order of bishops alone be- 
longs the power of ordaining ministers?" 

To many it is thought not a little strange, that the 
English church should set up so high claims to a di- 
vinely protected succession, and at the same time ex- 
hibit such unequivocal manifestations of abhorrence 
and contempt, of the venerable mother church, from 
which it is descended. Nothing can exceed the abuse, 
which it has poured out on the church of Rome, ever 
since the separation. Scarcely a theological work 
appeared in the English language, for the two first 
centuries after this period, which did not contain more 
or less about the horrors and pollutions of popery. 
The Homilies themselves, which were appointed, and 
are still required by the articles, to be read at stated 
times in the churches, are very full and direct on this 
subject.* The whole three sermons against the peril 
of idolatry, are aimed at the depravity of the Romish 
church. How can they, who have such an opinion 
of the church of Rome, suppose it to be the true 
church of the Lord Jesus? What do they find in the 
ministry of this church, which, according to their own 
account, can convince them, that it has been from its 

* According to one of the homilies, "She (the idolatrous church of 
Rome) is not only a harlot, as the scripture calleth her, but a foul, 
filthy, old, withered harlot — the foulest and filthiest harlot, that 
ever was seen — the great strumpet of all strumpets." There is a 
full page of this kind of language. Homilies, Fol. 1713, p. 162, 
Sermon against the Peril of Idolatry, Third Part. 



42 

origin under a divine influence? Most persons would 
think it to be a mark of wisdom, to say as little as 
possible about a succession which they acknowledge 
has come through such a channel, as they describe in 
the church of Rome. 

Another thing is somewhat puzzling. How can the 
English clergy claim their authority from the apos- 
tles, when it is one of the fundamental doctrines of 
the church, that it is derived from the king? By an 
act of parliament at the very commencement of the 
English reformation, it was decreed, that "the king's 
majesty justly and rightfully is, and ought to be, the 
supreme head of the church of England;"* and ac- 
cording to the thirty-sixth canon, every person, be- 
fore he enters the ministry, must acknowledge the 
"king's majesty, under God, to be the only supreme 
governor of the realm— as well in all spiritual or ec- 
clesiastical things or causes, as temporal." Has not 
the king power to suspend bishops, and prohibit 
them from exercising the functions of their office? 

Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, and one of the most 
learned of the catholics, has written largely on the 
English reformation, and made it appear, in the most 
conclusive manner, that this church can make no 
claims to any ecclesiastical authority, derived from 
the catholic church. He has taken his historical facts 
entirely from Burnet, whom no one can accuse of par- 
tiality for the catholic religion, and whom no one will 
deny to have been an able advocate of the reforma- 
tion, "a distinct narrative of which," he says, "makes 
its apology, as well as its history." Yet from the 

* See Records and Instruments, No. 2. attached to Courayer's 

Defence, 



43 



faithful history of Burnet, nothing is more clear, than 
that the English church, instead of heing a stately 
pillar in the Horn is h episcopacy, was raised out of its 
ruins. 

In the very outset of the reformation, in the time of 
Henry VIII. it was laid down as a maxim, "that the 
king was pope in England.". Edward VI. retained 
the same authority, and the bishops took out new com- 
missions from him, which were to be "revoked at the 
king's pleasure." The bishops held only a preca- 
rious power, which was to be resigned at the will of 
the king. They had power to ordain and dismiss 
ministers, but they were required to do it "in his name 
and under his authority." In short, it was decreed 
in parliament, that "no one could have any jurisdic- 
tion, either temporal, or spiritual, which was not de- 
rived from the king, as* its source."* 

Had the reformers believed in the divine right of 
episcopal jurisdiction is it possible, that they would 
thus have taken every vestige of power from the bi- 
shops, and given it into the hands of kings? But 
whatever may have been their opinions on this sub- 
ject, it is certain they did not derive, nor profess to 
derive, their authority from any ecclesiastical source. 

* Oeuvres de Bossuot, Tom. xix. et xx. Historie des Variations 
des Eglises Protestantes, liv. vii. Burnet's History of the Re- 
formation, Part ii. 

In his concluding remarks on the control of the king, and of the 
civil authority, over the power of the bishops, Bossuet observes, 
"Nul acte ecclesiastique, pas meme ceuxqui regardent la predica- 
tion, les censures, laliturgie, les sacremens, et la foi meme, n'ade 
force en Angleterre qu'autant qu'il est approuve et valide par les 
rois; ce qui au fond donne aux rois plus que la parole, et plus que 
l'administration des sacremens, puisqu'il les rend souverains arbi- 
tres de Pun et de 1'autre." Hist, des Var. Liv. 10. 



44 

If the bishops were descended from the apostles, then 
it must have been by virtue of this descent, and thi$ 
alone, that they possessed spiritual authority. It was 
not an authority of which kings or parliaments could 
deprive them, and it showed a deplorable defection of 
principle, or a pitiable weakness, to bow at the shrine 
of human greatness, if they were conscious of being 
bound by the laws of a divine authority. These men 
either did not believe in the divine succession, or their 
conduct is inexcusable. If their authority was di- 
vine, it was permanent; and yet they suffered their 
commissions to be revoked at the pleasure of the king, 
were ordained by rules prescribed by him, and ven- 
tured to publish no articles of religion, which had not 
received his sanction. All spiritual authority was 
effectually subordinate to the temporal; and how it 
can be argued, that these bishops were acting as the 
descendants of the apostles, while the existence of 
their authority, and the extent of their power, de- 
pended solely on the will of the king, is a question, 
which I must leave unanswered, 

Let us go back still farther. Has not the pope 
power to excommunicate whom he pleases, and annul 
their ordinations? If so, what security is there under 
his authority for episcopal succession, or what is its va- 
lue? If the power, which it communicates, may be de- 
stroyed by human authority, why may it not be grant- 
ed by the same authority? A power, which the pope 
can destoy, is in the fullest sense derived from him. 
There is a memorable example of this in the catholic 
see of Utrecht. All the bishops of this see have been 
regularly consecrated; but because Dominick Varlet, 
who a hundred years ago consecrated the first bishop, 



45 



was at that time under the censure of the pope, the 
whole see has ever since been declared schismatical, 
and each successive prelate has regularly received a 
renewed condemnation from the sovereign Pontiff.* 
A similar example is recorded by Calvin, in the case of 
Eugenius and Amadeus. When by the decree of the 
council of Basil, Eugenius was deposed, degraded, 
and pronounced guilty of sch sm together with all the 
bishops and cardinals, who had united with him in 
opposing the council, Calvin says, the succession of 
the ministry was at this time virtually broken, for, 
"from the bosom of these heretics and rebels, have 
proceeded all the popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, 
and priests ever since."f Be this as it may, how 
can that ministry be said to have a divine origin, 
and be kept up in a divine succession, which can be 
suspended or annulled at the pleasure of a king, pope, 
or council? 

I have thus gone through with a patient examina- 
tion of the evidence, on which the episcopal church 
advances its singular pretensions to a divine origin 
and succession. In the scriptures I have found no- 
thing, either in the commands of our Saviour, or of 
the apostles, which can justify any class of men in as- 
suming to themselves the claim of being the only true 
church. 

A similar result has followed from the testimony of 
the Fathers, and the history of the English reforma- 
tion. First, it can be indisputably proved from the 

* See the Pastoral Letter of archbishop Marechal, to the Con- 
gregation of Norfolk, Virginia, 1819, second edition, Appendix, 
p. 84. 

t Institutes; Dedication to the JCing, p. 25. 

7 



46 



Fathers, that the churches in the primitive ages were 
not uniformly governed by three orders of ministry; 
but frequently by two, and sometimes by one. Se- 
condly, bishops were parochial clergymen, in many 
places at least, and nothing more. Thirdly, ordina- 
tions were performed by presbyters, especially in the 
case of Irenaeus, and for a long time in the church at 
Alexandria. Fourthly, no particular account can be 
give** of the origin of the church of Rome, or of its 
first seven bishops. Fifthly, the power of the Eng- 
lish clergy is confessedly derived from the king, 
and not from any church. Sixthly* the informality 
of ordination in the English church was such, in the 
opinion of the Catholics, who are supposed to consti- 
tute the true church, as to destroy all power, that 
might be transmitted by the episcopal succession. 
Seventhly, English bishops were at an early period 
consecrated by presbyters, and at a much later period, 
ordination by presbyters was considered valid. Fi. 
nally, the consecration of archbishop Parker, who 
was the beginning of the succession since his time, 
both to English and American bishops, was declared, 
and is still considered by the Catholics, invalid, and 
was at best of a very suspicious and doubtful charac- 
ter. 

These are difficulties in the way of your positions, 
which it can be no easy matter for the most sanguine 
friends of episcopacy to remove. Taking the whole 
train of evidence iuto consideration, the arguments in 
favour of the jure divino pretensions to episcopacy, 
when arrayed in all their strength, cannot place it on 
a firmer basis, than conjecture and possibility. Many 
contradictions must be reconciled, much positive tes- 



47 



timony destroyed, and much light brought out of 
darkness, even before this can be done. Is any one 
willing to accede to the extraordinary pretensions, 
which the episcopal church makes, to a divine origin 
and succession, on grounds so slender and feeble as 
these? 

To support such claims, nothing should be consi- 
dered sufficient, but clear, positive, continued, unan- 
swerable evidence. This evidence is not found in 
tbe Bible, or the practice of the primitive ages; it is 
not found in history, or the common sense of man- 
kind; nor do I believe it can be found any where. 

It has not been my object to show, that the epis- 
copal mode of church government is not a good one, 
when allowed to stand on its proper foundation. 
Whether it is well calculated to promote the great ob - 
jects of the christian religion, and to make effectual 
the means of salvation in the hearts and lives of men, 
is not a question with which I am at present concerned. 
If it is a government with which the people are pleas- 
ed, that is enough. They are the only proper judges. 
It may perhaps be doubted, whether it is so well 
adapted to the genius and spirit of our civil govern- 
ment and institutions, as some other form; yet while it 
does not interfere with these, and while it is allowed 
to be derived from the people, I can discover no rea- 
son why any one should complain. 

It is not the form to which I object, but the pre- 
tensions, and the improper influence, which the heads 
of a church, professing to be vested by their official 
character with apostolical sanctity, will be likely to 
have on the weaker and more credulous part of so- 
ciety. It has been my aim to make it appear, that 



48 



no such pretensions are authorized in the scriptures, 
or sanctioned by the practice of the apostolic age. 

Archdeacon Paley, one of the brightest ornaments 
of the episcopal church) long ago placed this subject 
in its true light, in his sermon on the distinction of 
orders in the church. He proves very clearly, that 
the apostolic usages and directions do not warrant 
any exclusive form of ecclesiastical government. He 
observes, "whilst the precepts of christian morality, 
and the fundamental articles of its faith, are for the 
most part precise and absolute, of perpetual, univer- 
sal, and unalterable obligation; the laws which re- 
spect the discipline, instruction and government of 
the community, are delivered in terms so general and 
indefinite, as to admit of an application adapted to the 
mutable condition, and varying exigencies of the 
christian church " 

The reason for this is very obvious. The chris- 
tian religion was intended for all countries, and all 
times; and it was necessary that its external institu^ 
tions should be of so general a nature, as to be adapt- 
ed to the local circumstances, peculiar situation, and 
established laws of different communities. It was the 
end, and not the means, which our Saviour and his 
apostles had in view. Principles of faith, rules of 
action, the spirit of the gospel, the temper of love, 
piety and holiness, were to be established in the 
minds and hearts of men. How this object could best 
be effected under different circumstances, was left to 
the judgment and prudence of good men.* The 

* It is not a little amusing to see with what raptures the editor 
ef Nelson's work on Festivals and Fasts, speaks of Law's three let- 



49 



bishop of Lincoln advances similar sentiments.* Al- 
though he labours to prove episcopacy to be an apos- 
tolic institution, he does not consider it of divine ori- 
gin. As God has prescribed no particular mode of 
civil government, so he acknowledges, that the com- 
mands and precepts of the New Testament do not en- 
join any particular form of ecclesiastical polity. 

Locke, who was also an episcopalian, uses still 
stronger language. "A church," says he, "I take, 
to be a society, joining themselves together of 
their own accord, in order to the public worship 
of God, in such a manner as they shall judge ac- 
ceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation of 
their souls." After having stated the objection offer- 
ed by some, that no society can be regarded a true 
church, unless it have in it a presbyter or bishop, de- 
riving his authority from the apostles, he goes on to 
remark; "to those who make this objection, I answer, 
let them show me the edict by which Christ has im- 
posed that law on his church, and let not anv man 
think me impertinent, if in a thing of this consequence, 

ters to bishop Hoadly. He says they form a conclusive answer 
to archdeacon Paley, "expose his dangerous errors, detect the 
fallacy of his arguments, and drive him humbled from the strong 
holds in which he fancied himself secure!" And in what way is 
this wonderful achievement attained? By taking for granted the 
very thing to be proved, namely, that the "christian ministry is a di- 
vine, positive institution," and that the form of this institution 
was originally episcopal. Starting with these premises, it re- 
quires not much skill in logic to infer, that episcopacy is of divine 
origin, and therefore unchangeable. And this is the amount of 
Law's argument. 

* Elements of Christian Theology, vol, ii. p. 576, et seqq. as 
quoted by Dr. Rees, Cycl. Art. Bish. 



50 



1 require that the terms of the edict be very express 
and positive."* It will be well for all persons, who 
believe in the divine institution of any particular order 
of ministry, and that this order still remains, to search 
carefully and find such an edict before they are very 
positive, or begin to seek for arguments from foreign 
and unauthenticated sources. 

As no rules are prescribed in the scriptures on this 
subject, we have reason to think, that all denomi- 
nations of christians are fully authorised to form such 
regulations for the government of their churches, as 
they may think best calculated to promote the great 
interests of religion. While every thing is done "de- 
cently and in order/' while they endeavor to imbibe 
the spirit of the gospel, and acquire the temper, as 
well as copy the example of the apostles, they will 
be conforming to the will of God, and the precepts of 
our Saviour. 

All the duties requisite for personal holiness, and 
acceptance with God, are clearly enjoined in the scrip- 
tures; but nothing is said about the manner in which 
ministers of the gospel shall be chosen, or the form in 
which they shall be initiated into their office. We 
know the apostles, and their immediate successors, 
were not guided by any uniform rules in this respect, 
and we have no reasons for supposing, that any such 
rules were intended to be applied to christians of after 
ages. There is not a single positive direction in the 
whole word of God on the subject. Every well or- 
dered christian community has a right to establish 
such religious institutions, as may be best suited to 



* Letters on Toleration. 



51 



its condition. The people of such a community have 
a right to institute such a form of ecclesiastical go- 
vernment, and appoint such officers, as they shall 
deem expedient. 

The government of the primitive church at Jerusa- 
lem, was essentially a government of the people. If 
we are to follow example, we certainly can have none 
of higher authority than this. It was a church to 
which the apostles themselves belonged. If such 
was the example of the apostles, we cannot be in an 
error, if we make such our practice. As the church 
was governed by the people then, why should it not 
be governed in the same way now? Let the people 
adopt such a form of government as they choose; but 
still, let it be understood as resting w ith them, and not 
be considered as imposed by any pretensions to di- 
vine authority. If they are pleased with the episco- 
pal form, let them quietly enjoy it. If they prefer to 
be governed by associations, assemblies, synods, 
councils, or consociations, let them have the liberty 
of making this choice. If they think it more con- 
sonant to the usages of the first christians, and more 
consistent with the principles of religious freedom, to 
unite in separate societies, and form such regulations 
as are suited to their circumstances, let them not be 
disturbed, or called schismatics, because they think 
this a preferable mode. 

Civil governments, and the conditions of society, 
will no doubt, in some degree, affect ecclesiastical in- 
stitutions. The form of church government, which 
is best in one country, may not always be the best in 
another; yet in no country, and under no circumstances, 
can any number of christians justly be prohibited 



5% 

from uniting to worship God after such a form as they 
think best, provided they do not disturb the peace of 
society, or encroach on the civil power. 

Ail ministers appointed by the consent and appro- 
bation of the people, whom they are to teach, are re- 
gularly appointed; all ministers ordained according to 
such forms, as the people shall think consistent with 
the general instructions and tenor of the scriptures, 
and best calculated to give interest and solemnity to 
the occasion, are regularly ordained And such per- 
sons have as high a commission to administer the or- 
dinances of the christian religion, and to discharge 
all the duties of the ministerial office, as they could 
receive from any authority residing in the archbishop 
of Canterbury, or the incumbent of the Holy See at 
Rome. 



Reverend and dear sir, 

The present letter I shall devote to a consider, 
ation of some of the ceremonies and forms contained 
in the ritual of the episcopal church. You profess it 
to be the principal object of your discourse, to let 
your hearers know, "why they are Protestaut Episco- 
palians," in distinction from other denominations of 
christians. In discharging this duty, however well 
you may have succeeded in convincing your hearers 
of the true grounds of their faith, and of the propriety 
of the forms which they adopt in religious services, 
you have passed over many things, which, I am in- 
clined to think, the public in general, to whom you 
have submitted your discourse, will not readily un- 
derstand, or receive, without a further explanation. 

You have omitted entirely the ritual of the church, 
which, by many, is thought to contain things not 
altogether conformable to scripture, or calculated to 
ensure a holy practice. Good men, and pious chris- 
tians, have seen in some of the ceremonies of the 
church a strange leaning to the practices of darker 
times, when infallibility, papal supremacy, and the 
8 



54 



decrees of councils, were among the first articles of 
the believer's creed. They have seen an unaccount- 
able departure from the simplicity of the gospel, and 
the usages of the first christians. 

Two positive ordinances only are enjoined in the 
scriptures, namely, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. 
It is to be observed, that in neither of these, are any 
particular forms prescribed, in which it is required 
they shall be administered. We are to baptize with 
water; to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance 
of Christ. We have no other directions. Nothing is 
said about time, place, or manner. As these ordi- 
nances were to be perpetual, and were intended for 
all the followers of Christ, it was necessary they 
should be such, as could be complied with in every 
age and country, and in every condition of civil so- 
ciety. But had any specific forms been pointed out, 
there might be circumstances under which they could 
not be followed. >\ henever baptism is administer- 
ed with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit; and whenever the communion of the 
Lord's Supper is partaken with sincerity, in remem- 
brance of Christ, the command of our Saviour will 
be obeyed, and these ordinances will be valid, what- 
ever external forms it may be found expedient to 
adopt in their administration. 

One of the mysteries in the ritual of the episcopal 
church, which needs explaining to my understanding, 
and probably to that of most of your readers, is the 
form of baptism. In this ceremony, by what authori- 
ty, except the superstition of the dark ages, is the 
minister required to make, on the forehead of the per- 
son baptized, "the sign of the cross?" This relic of 



55 



ancient superstition is not sanctioned by a single text 
of scripture, and why should it still be preserved? 
Bishop Burnet says, in speaking of the origin of this 
practice, "with the use of it, the devil was adjured to 
go out of the person baptized and Lactantius, "nor 
can the devils approach to them, on whom they see 
this heavenly mark; nor can they hurt those, whom 
this heavenly sign, as an impregnable fortress, de- 
fends/'* Whether such is the present belief of the 
church I cannot say, but it is certain, there is nothing in 
the Bible, which can warrant this singular appendage 
to the ceremony of baptism, and the only effect, which 
so unscriptural a practice can produce, is to perpetu- 
ate error and superstition. 

Another singular part of this ceremony in the bap. 
tism of infants, is, that persons, who are not the pa- 
rents of the child, are allowed, and indeed, by a 
canon of the English church, such are required to be- 
come sureties or sponsors for the child. f The Ame- 
rican convention improved upon this canon, and 
agreed that "parents shall be admitted as sponsors, 
if it be desired, " But when there are parents, let it 
be seriously asked, why should any other persons he 
allowed to take upon themselves this important 
charge? 

* Lact. Instit. lib. iv. c. xxvii. and Peirce's Vindication, p. 157. 
It was formerly the custom for the priest to exorcise the persons 
to be baptized, "by lading his hands on their heads, and breathing 
in their faces, to expel the devil, and inspire them with the Holy 
Spirit." See Edinb. Encyc. Art. Baptism. 

t Canon xxix. "No parent shall be admitted to answer as god- 
father for his own child. 1 ' 



56 



The minister says to the sponsors, "this infant 
must faithfully for his part, promise by you that are 
his sureties, (until he come of age to take it upon 
himself) that he will renounce the devil and all his 
works, and constantly believe God's holy word, and 
obediently keep his commandments." This is a very 
serious and solemn engagement on the part of the 
sponsors; and when circumstances prevent their hav- 
ing any influence over the child, as must often happen, 
how are they to keep it? They are required, also, "to 
provide that the child may learn the creed, the Lord's 
prayer, and the ten commandments." As there is no 
authority in scripture for this practice, why should 
the church expose any to the danger of violating en- 
gagements so solemn as these, or of promising what 
they cannot perform?* 

But the part of the ceremony which is the most ex- 
ceptionable, and which, indeed, cannot but be produc- 
tive of dangerous consequences, is that in which are 
declared the nature and objects of the institution. The 
minister prays, that the child, "being delivered from 

* In the time of the apostles, all persons were baptized as 
soon as they were converted to the christian religion. In the 
second century, some particular qualifications began to be 
thought necessary, as a preparation for this ceremony. Persons 
were then first appointed to give such preparatory instructions as 
were required; and these persons were called sponsors. This 
practice does not appear to have extended to infants till the fourth 
century. About the same time, as nearly as can be ascertained, 
the sign of the cross began first to be employed. See New Edmb. 
Encyclopsed. vol. iii. p. 236. 

It appears, therefore, that for a long time, it was the duty of 
sponsors to prepare persons for baptism, and not for confirma- 
tion. 



57 



the wrath of God, may be received into the ark of 
Christ's church," and that he "may receive remission 
of sin by spiritual regeneration " From these ex- 
pressions it seems, that before baptism, the church 
considers all infants under the wrath of God, and 
guilty of sin, although they have never done a single 
action with the consciousness of an evil intention. It 
is furthermore implied, that the mere ceremony of 
baptism takes away the guilt of sin, and appeases the 
wrath of God. 

After the ceremony is performed with water and 
the sign of the cross, the minister says, "this child is 
regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's 
church." The same expressions are used in baptiz- 
ing persons advanced to maturer age. 

The above quotations are from the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, authorized by the American convention. 
The following is contained in the English prayer 
book, but was omitted by the couventiou. In the ser- 
vice of private baptism, after the baptismal words are 
pronounced, the minister is made to say, <»tbis child 
being born in original sin, and in the wrath of God, 
is now by the laver of regeneration in baptism, re- 
ceived into the number of the children of Grod, and 
heirs of eternal life." Why this was left out of 
the American prayer book we are not told. The 
language is a little stronger, than is used in either 
parts of the baptismal service, but the sentiments are 
precisely the same. 

It is the doctrine of the episcopal church, there- 
fore, that the simple act of baptism washes away 
all former sins, restores the persons baptized to the 
favour of God, and makes them heirs of salvation. 



58 



This is clearly stated in the twenty-seventh article, 
which says, "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, 
and mark of difference, whereby christian men are 
discerned from others that be not christened; but it is 
also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, 
as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly 
are grafted into the church; the promises of the for- 
giveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of 
God, are visibly signed and sealed " In the cate- 
chism, which is to be repeated by every child before 
confirmation, baptism is said to be "a death unto sin, 
and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by na- 
ture born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are 
hereby made the children of grace. " The bishop of 
Lincoln has written a chapter to prove, that "the 
words regeneration, and born again, are in scripture 
applied to the one immediate effect of baptism once 
administered, and are never used as synonymous to 
repentance or reformation of a christian/'* He says 
further, that such is the doctrine of the "Liturgy, 
Articles, and Homilies." 

It is scarcely necessary to remark on this doctrine. 
Every one must see its dangerous tendency. No- 
thing is said about the sincerity, the moral character, 
or religious intentions of the person baptized. He 
may be a hypocrite, he may be wicked and abandon- 
ed, without any actual change of heart, or any desire 
to change, and yet the ceremony will be equally ef- 
fectual in taking away the guilt of sin, and making 
him heir to the promises of eternal life. Hence, a man, 
who has lived to an old age, in every excess of wick- 



* Refutation of Calvinism, seventh edition, p. 87". 



59 



edness, and has never been baptized, may obtain a 
a pardon of all his past sins, and secure the reward 
of salvation, by having the ceremony of baptism per- 
formed in his dying moments. What other tendency 
can such a doctrine have, than to encourage men in 
wickedness, and to deceive them with false hopes?* 1 
It was no doubt this doctrine of the church, which 
led Mr. Dodwell to the very strange positions, that 
he has advanced in his Epistolary Discourses. He 
maintained that the soul is naturally mortal, but is 
immortalized by its union with the divine baptismal 
spirit; and that "none, since the apostles, have the 
power of conferring this immortalizing spirit; except- 
ing only the bishops." 

* The case of Constantine the Great is a memorable one. Al- 
though he made pretensions to much warmth of zeal in the cause 
of Christianity, he delayed baptism till a short time before his 
death. After a life stained with wickedness and murder, and du- 
ring the time of an alarming sickness, he resorted to the ceremony 
of baptism, as an expiation of all his sins, and a full preparation 
for heaven. This example was often followed. Many persons 
thought it prudent not to hasten a ceremony, which had the 
power of washing out the stains of former guilt, but which could 
not be repeated. 

It was the opinion of Chrysostom, that baptism took away the 
guilt of all passed transgressions, but did not secure the person 
against future sin. 

"Car bien que ce sacrement emporte les crimes passes, la source 
de ces crimes n'est point tarie." 

"Le bapteme lave le peche; mais etouffez, s'il se peut, dans votre 
ame l'inclination au mal." Les Homel. des Chrysost. Trad, par 
Maucroix, Paris, 1671, p. 3S3, 334. 

This agrees very nearly with the opinion of the church, as ex- 
pressed in the Book of Common Prayer. 



60 



It must be acknowledged, that the entire form of 
baptism, as practised in the episcopal church, is a 
wide departure from the simplicity of the gospel. No 
particular form is there prescribed. Nothing is said 
about sponsors, or the sign of the cross; "renouncing 
the devil and all his works," or learning a creed. 
Why then should we darken and encumber this cere- 
mony with these unscriptural additions? And above 
all, nothing is said, from which it is safe for us to 
infer, that the mere ceremony of baptism will wash 
away our sins, and purify our natures. We are there 
told, that the conditions of salvation are faith, repent- 
ance, and a good life. 

Some persons, aware of the consequence of this 
doctrine as received by the church, have endeavoured 
to modify it, and have reminded us, that the contem- 
plated effects will follow only on condition of the 
baptism being "rightly received." But no such con- 
ditions are mentioned in the baptismal service. The 
persons to whom baptism is administered are never 
told, that it will be ineffectual if they do not receive it 
rightly. They are made to understand by positive 
declarations, that they are "regenerate, and grafted 
into the body of Christ's church." Infants, in parti- 
cular, have no volition in this ceremony. Whenever 
they receive baptism, they cannot but receive it right- 
ly; and if the effects above mentioned are not always 
supposed to follow, the words in which they are ex- 
pressed are unmeaning, and should not be used. 

But the truth is, it is evident from the article in 
which this condition is found, that it does not refer to 
the disposition, or spiritual state of the person baptiz- 
ed, but to the manner in which the ceremony is per- 



01 



formed. To receive baptism rightly, is to receive it 
at the hands of a proper person, and according to the 
established forms of the church. The consequences 
of this ordinance, as it is required to be practised in 
the baptismal service, will not therefore, in any sense 
be done away by this clause in the twenty-seventh 
article.* 

Another ceremony in the episcopal church, and one 
which has no direct scriptural authority, is confirma- 
tion. All persons, who have been baptized when 
infants, are required, after they have learnt the creed, 
the Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments, to be 
brought before the bishop, and to be confirmed, before 
they can partake of the communion of the Lord's 
Supper. Did our Saviour make any such conditions, 
when he instituted this rite? Where does he say, it 
is necessary for any to be confirmed by a bishop be- 

* The doctrine and form of baptism are taken almost literally 
from the Romish church. The idea, that this ceremony washed 
away original sin, was early conceived, and has long been an es- 
tablished doctrine in the church of Rome. 

In a catechism published by the bishop of Meaux for his diocess, 
the following are said to be the effects of baptism. "It frees the 
person baptized from original sin, and from the other sins, which 
he may have committed after his birth;— it takes away the sin, 
which we brought with us into the world, and gives us a new life." 
The person to be baptized is made to "renounce the devil, and all 
his pomps, and all his works." (Ne renoncez-vous pas au diable, 
et a toutes ses pom pes, et a toutes ses oeuvres? On repond;j'y re- 
nonce.) Oeuvres de Bossuet, Versailles, 1815, Tom. vi. p. 39. 

From these quotations it will be seen, that there is no essen- 
tial difference, in regard to the nature and form of this ceremony, 
between the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the church of 
Rome. 

9 



62 



fore they can become his disciples, and be made par- 
takers of this privilege. 

Moreover, this ceremony of confirmation is exceed- 
ingly exceptionable in itself. In a prayer on this oc- 
casion, the bishop says, "we make our humble sup- 
plications unto thee for these thy servants, upon 
whom, after the example of the holy apostles, we have 
now laid our hands, to certify them, by this sign, of 
thy favour and gracious goodness towards them." 
From this it would appear, that bishops are to be 
considered as communicating the same powers, and 
conferring the same blessings, as did the apostles. In 
fact, it is making them in this respect, equal to the 
apostles. We have already seen, that by the ceremo- 
ny of baptism, they are supposed to have the power 
of procuring a remission of sins; and here we are told, 
that by laying their hands on the heads of certain 
persons, they give a sure sign of these same persons 
receiving the special grace of God. 

Do bishops, indeed, imagine themselves to be not 
only spiritual descendants of the apostles, but endow- 
ed with the same powers? Let them give some of the 
evidences, which the apostles gave, of these wonder- 
ful endowments. Let them heal the sick, perform 
miracles, speak in various tongues, and confer these 
gifts on others. When they have done this, I have no 
doubt, all will acknowledge the reality of their high 
and extraordinary pretensions, and yield to their au- 
thority. Until they give some such evidence, they 
cannot be surprised, that many should reject the va- 
lidity of their claims, and choose to consult and obey 
the scriptures, rather than be guided by human forms. 



63 



which have no other sanction, than the authority ot 
men. 

Whenever laying on of hands is mentioned in the 
New Testament, it always implies either a communi- 
cation of extraordinary gifts, or an initiation into 
some office. When Peter and John "laid their hands 
on the Samaritan converts, they received the Holy 
Spirit." Acts viii. 17. When the apostles laid their 
hands on the seveu persons, who were appointed to 
aid in taking care of the poor, (Acts vi. 6.) there is 
no reason to suppose it was any thing more, than a 
form of induction into office. Nothing is said of 
their receiving spiritual gifts; nor did the duties of 
their office require any. 

Paul writes to Timothy thus, "neglect not the gift, 
that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, 
with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 
1 Tim. iv. 14. In this case, the laying on of hands 
seems to have been a form, by which Timothy was 
introduced into the ministry, as well as a means of 
conferring some spiritual gift. As those, who are in- 
tended for confirmation, are not designed to be intro- 
duced into any office, if this ceremony means any 
thing, it must imply a communication of extraordina- 
ry gifts from the bishop. But no bishop has ever yet 
made it appear, that he possessed any such gifts 
himself. How then can he communicate them to 
others?* 

* The ceremony of confirmation is taken, without much altera- 
tion, from the church of Rome. It is there required to be per- 
formed by a bishop, and is said to confer the gift of the holy 
sj)irit, and strengthen the grace, which was received at baptism . 
The bishop ''places his hands on the persons, whom he is about to 



64 



Similar remarks may be made on the ordination 
service of the episcopal church. It implies a power 
in the bishop of conferring the holy spirit. In one 
part of the service the bishop says, "come Holy 
Ghost, our souls inspire," and when he has laid his 
hands on the head of the person to be ordained a 
priest, he says, "receive the Holy Ghost for the office, 
and work of a priest in the church of Grod, now com- 
mitted unto thee by the imposition of our hands; — 
whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and 
whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained " 

This is going many steps farther, than in the cere- 
mony of confirmation. The bishop not only pretends 
to communicate the holy spirit, but also the power of 
forgiving sins. a Whose sins thou dost forgive they 

confirm, and invokes the holy spirit to descend upon them with its 
gifts." The Protestant Episcopal Church has omitted the "holy 
chrism," which the catholics think a very important part of the 
ceremony. This is a mixture of oil and balm, with which the 
bishop makes a cross on the forehead of the person confirmed, and 
is intended "to show, that no one ought to be ashamed of Christ." 
Catechisme de Bossuet, Oeuv. Tom. vi. p. 40; et Exposition de la 
Doctrine de L'Eglise Catholique, Oeuv. Tom. xviii. p. 104. 

The sign of the cross was at first adopted by the English 
church, according to Burnet, in the "ceremony of confirmation, 
and in the consecration of the sacramental elements," but it was 
afterwards suppressed; "Nor can I devise," says Bossuet, "why it 
was retained only in baptism." Hist, des Var. liv. vii. § 90. 

In speaking of this ceremony, Cave observes, it was "usually 
performed with unction, the person confirmed being anointed by 
the bishop, or in his absence by an inferior minister" Cave's 
Primit. Christianity, chap.x. p. 208, seventh edition, London, 1714. 

From this account it appears, that confirmation was sometimes 
performed in ancient times by the inferior clergy, and with unc- 
tion, neither of which is at presentjallowed in the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church. 



65 



are forgiven." Can there be a higher stretch of hu- 
man presumption? It is assuming the character and 
authority of our Saviour. He empowered his apos- 
tles to forgive sins. Do bishops, indeed, think them- 
selves, in their official capacity, not only equal to the 
apostles, but to the Saviour of the world? Where will 
this end? Every minister of the episcopal church, 
who believes there is any meaning in the forms 
of ordination, must think he possesses the power of 
forgiving sins. No matter what his character may be, 
he possesses this power by virtue of his office. This 
is expressly acknowledged by Nelson, in his Chap- 
ter on the Festival of Whitsunday. "Though all 
men," says he, "that are in holy offices ought to lead 
holy lives, yet a failure in duty is not a forfeiture of 
authority."* What doctrine could more effectually 
promote a spirit of pride and presumption in the min- 
ister, and immorality in the people? The wicked 
man has only to resort to his minister to soothe the 
achings of a guilty conscience, and receive the as- 
surance of divine forgiveness. It is well, that people 
of the present day have too much good sense, and too 
little credulity, to be deceived into so dangerous an 
error; but it would be better if such forms as are cal- 
culated to deceive, and have an immoral tendency, 
were abolished. 

In the English Book of Common Prayer, the min- 
ister is required, when he visits sick persons, to ab- 
solve them from their sins, "if they humbly and hear- 
tily desire it." After imploring the Lord Jesus to 
forgive the offences of the sick person, the minister 

* Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, New York, 1817, 
p. 213. 



66 



is directed to say, "by his authority committed to me, 
I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This 
form of absolution was omitted by the American 
convention. But it is not easy to tell the reason; for 
if a bishop can empower a minister to forgive sins, 
the same minister can certainly exercise this power 
for the benefit of sick persons, as well as others. 

All that part of the Book of Common Prayer, 
which relates to baptism, confirmation, ordination, 
consecration, and visiting the sick, carries with it the 
supposition, that bishops have the power of commu- 
nicating the holy spirit, and ministers of forgiving 
sins, which few persons of the present day, who read 
the scriptures, consult 4heir understandings, or re- 
spect the principles of common sense, will he ready 
to allow. 

I have dwelt the longer on these topics, as they 
have an intimate connexion with the subject of the 
preceding letter. The unscriptural parts of these ce- 
remonies have evidently grown out of the notion of 
the apostolical character of the ministry. They af- 
ford a comment on that doctrine, which is well worthy 
of notice. As the ministers descended from the apos- 
tles, it is taken for granted, that they possess the same 
qualifications; and the rules of their office seem to 
have been formed on this supposition. When it is 
recollected by what a precarious tenure the episcopal 
clergy hold their claims to the apostolical dignity, it 
will be seen how singularly inappropriate and pre- 
suming are many parts of the ceremonies, which have 
just been considered. That such errors should have 
crept into the church in the days of ignorance and 



67 

darkness is not so wonderful; but that men should 
still be found in an enlightened and free community, 
who defend and cling to them, is not less unaccount- 
able than surprising. 

Your remarks on the expediency and utility of 
forms of prayer are not without weight. If we ever 
give utterance to our feelings in chaste, appropriate, 
and solemn language, it should be in our addresses to 
the Deity. If we ever suppress the vain ambition of 
using lofty phrases, high sounding epithets, and an 
unnecessary abundance of words, it should be then. 
We cannot study too much to make our language 
simple, plain, forcible, and direct. In those reli- 
gious exercises, in which large numbers unite, and 
where the prayers are intended to express the wants, 
and petitions of the whole, there can certainly be no 
impropriety in using a preconceived form, composed 
in such general terms, as to be adapted to a promis- 
cuous assembly. No prayer in a public assembly is 
appropriate, unless every individual present can unite 
in every part. It may sometimes happen, that the 
feelings of the speaker, and his want of aptness in ar- 
ranging and combining his thoughts, may lead him into 
irrelevant expressions, and such as are not adapted to 
the occasion. This is the only inconvenience, that 
can arise from extemporaneous prayers; and, to pre- 
vent this, it may be expedient sometimes to have stu- 
died forms. 

It should be remembered, however, that forms in 
religion are useful, as far as they promote a virtuous 
conduct, and vital godliness; but beyond this they are 
injurious. It is rightful and good to have order and 
system in our religious institutions and services. But 



68 



we must take care not to neglect the reality for the 
form, the substance for the shadow. There is dan- 
ger, that by treading in the same steps from day to 
day, we shall at length persuade ourselves, that we 
walk in the only true path. We must be careful not 
to let the feeling grow upon us, that when we perform 
a ceremony, we necessarily do a religious act. 

Reading a prayer is not always praying, any more 
than the simple act of spending two hours in a church 
is religious worship. If the soul be not drawn out to 
God, and impressed with a consciousness of his pre- 
sence; if the heart and affections be not warm with a 
lively sense of his goodness; if all the faculties be not 
humbled with a feeling of reverence and submission, 
there is no devotion, however much ceremony there 
may be in standing and sitting, repeating forms, read- 
ing, or chanting. And the sincere, humble, penitent 
soul, can offer up praise and thanksgiving to Grod, ac- 
knowledge his dominion, implore his mercy, and 
render him an acceptable service at all times, and in 
all places, in such terms, as the overflowings of a de- 
votional spirit may dictate. The scriptures have not 
informed us what precise acts shall be considered 
worship. They have assured us, that sincere wor- 
ship must spring from the heart, but they have pre- 
scribed no particular mode in which we shall express 
our emotions of gratitude, thanksgivings, praise, de- 
pendence, and submission. This is left to the dis- 
cretion of every christian. It is only demanded of 
us, that we be sincere. 

Is it not a principal object of prayer to express de- 
votional feelings? And what is devotion without fer- 
vour, earnestness, and an impressive sense of the pre- 



69 



sence and inspection of God? Is it not much better, 
that we should have the life, the spirit of prayer, than 
the form? God looks into the heart, and regards the 
sentiments we cherish there, and not the modes we 
use in disclosing them. These modes should be such, 
as to enable us to retain the most lively emotions of a 
pious and holy temper, at the same time we use our 
best endeavours to offer up our devotions in appro- 
priate and expressive language. To speak words 
without feeling their full force, or being warmed by 
the sentiments they convey, is not devotion. Prayers 
repeated every sabbath from year to year in the same 
church, must, in the nature of things, lose much of their 
interest. Habit will diminish the irksomeness of re- 
petition, but it is to be feared, the words will too often 
pass through the mind, while the thoughts are wan- 
dering. 

There is another objection, which lies heavily 
against most forms of prayer, and from which the Li- 
turgy of the church, with all its acknowledged excels 
lencies in many respects, is by no means free. No 
address should ever be publicly made to the Deity, 
in which every christian, of every denomination, can- 
not cordially and devoutly join. It is not an occasion 
which should be employed to introduce dogmatical 
theology, or abstruse metaphysical distinctions. All 
the worshippers of God should assemble before him, 
"in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace." 
Names should be done away, and the distinguishing 
tenets of sects should be forgotten. Is this true of all the 
prayers of the episcopal church, and especially of the 
Litany? Are there not many conscientious and devout 
christians, whose minds revolt at the kind of worship 
10 



there rendered, when they recollect the command of 
our Saviour, "thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
and him only shalt thou serve?" This objection, 
which arises from the habit of conforming prayers to 
the views of a sect, bears equally strong against 
extemporaneous prayers, which partake of this 
character. An important difference is, that when 
forms become established, and are often repeated in 
churches, they are likely to produce more extensive 
injury to the cause of truth and piety. 

When you say, that "with respect to social wor- 
ship of every description, the doctrine and practice of 
the church universal are decidedly in favour of pre- 
conceived forms," and speak of the "lawfulness of 
forms being established by divine appointment " I 
hardly know how to understand you. If, by the 
"church universal," you mean all the churches of 
Christ, your statement is of course incorrect, because 
a great portion of them do not use set forms. If you 
mean those churches only, which hold to three orders 
in the ministry, I know not why you call them the 
"church universal." Or is it to be understood, that 
you consider all those denominations of christians, 
who do not adopt this mode of government, as being 
without the pale of the church? 

To prove forms of prayer to have been "establish- 
ed by divine appointment," you quote the general 
practice of singing psalms and hymns in churches, 
and say, "the Book of Psalms, was inspired by the 
Holy Ghost for the use of the congregration." This 
may he true, but it affords no proof in regard to forms 
of prayers. Bid our Saviour use a form in the gar- 
den of Getusemane, or the apostles in their public or 



71 



private devotions? There is no evidence of such a 
fact; and if forms of prayer are to be defended on any 
ground, it must be that of utility and expediency, and 
not of divine authority. While we pray from the 
heart, and lift up our souls to God in spirit and truth, 
our prayers will be heard, in whatever words they 
be expressed, or in whatever forms they may be of- 
fered. 

I cannot forbear saying a word on another topic, 
which you connect with the part of your discourse, 
which I am now considering. I mean the privilege 
of women to associate for religious exercises. In 
speaking of this subject, you were certainly betrayed 
into a warmth, which is not quite in accordance with 
the mild and equable spirit discoverable in almost 
every other part of your sermon. 

These are your words. "My brethren, when I con- 
sider that our God and Saviour has appointed a min- 
istry especially to serve in religious assemblies; that 
this ministry exists in every church in this city; — 
when I mark the retiring, the humble, the docile 
traits of character, which the sacred writings attribute 
to christian women; when I read the words of St. 
Paul to a church he had himself planted, 'let your wo- 
men keep silence in churches, for it is not permitted 
unto them to speak, for it is a shame for women to 
speak in the church;' — when I consider these, and 
other express declarations to the same effect, I cannot 
hesitate about the inexpediency of those meetings, in 
which females meet together, not to use the authoriz- 
ed prayers of the churchy but publicly to utter their 
own extempore effusions. The spirit of the church 
institutions, prescribing and providing a preconceived 



73 



form, frowns upon them. The language of St. Paul 
seems explicitly to discountenance them." p. 34. 

This language you must allow is very warm. Sup- 
posing there were reasons why the apostle should 
write as he did, respecting the Corinthian women; 
does it follow that the same reasons exist at the pre- 
sent day, and in a totally different state of society? 
Besides, if women were never to speak in religious 
assemblies, even in those times, why did St. Paul, in 
the same epistle from which you have quoted the 
above text, intimate that "they should not pray or 
prophecy with their heads uncovered." This text is 
a proof, that women were not excluded from speak- 
ing. 

Mr. Locke explains this subject much more favour, 
ably and consistently, than the learned authors whom 
you have quoted.* He considers the directions of 
the apostle to have reference to order in public assem- 
blies. To prevent disturbance and confusion, the 
women were required to yield precedence to the men, 
and not to speak while they were speaking. Some 
disorders, it would seem, had arisen by not having 
this point settled. This construction is rendered in 
the highest degree probable, by the manner in which 
the apostle speaks in the context. He first says, "God 
is not the author of confusion, but of peace," and after 
giving the directions about women's speaking, he 
concludes, "let all things be done decently and in 
order." 1 Cor. xiv. 40. It is evident, therefore, that 
the apostle did not intend to prohibit women from 
taking an active part in religious exercises on proper 
occasions. And even if the contrary were proved, it 

* See Locke's Notes on 1 Cor. c. xi. v. 5. 



78 



would not follow from any just principles of reason- 
ing, that the same prohibition was to be extended to 
women of all ages of the world. 

Where there are stated periods of public worship, 
and a regular ministry, I allow it would be more 
likely to promote the good order of society, and the 
happiness of individuals, if all christians could think 
they have done their duty, when they have punctually 
and conscientiously conformed to established usages, 
than it would to neglect the necessary and important 
avocations of life to assemble at irregular times for reli- 
gious worship. Yet our religion is a religion of free- 
dom. All persons have a right to worship God in 
such a way, and at such times as their feelings and 
consciences dictate. If we have a natural right, this is 
one. It does not depend on any compact, civil obli- 
gations, or the sanction of laws. Women have their 
peculiar sphere, as well as men, in which custom and 
the rules of society have placed them; but these do not 
interfere with their religious privileges. These have 
no power, and ought to have none, to control the con- 
science, or restrain devotion. 1 would not have women 
officiate publicly in churches, because it would be vio- 
lating custom and introducing confusion, and not be- 
cause it w r ould be contrary to any laws of nature or re- 
ligion. Jn this respect the sexes are on an equality. 
Whatever is a natural or religious right to one, is so 
to the other. It is hard indeed, if women cannot be 
allowed the privilege of exercising this right, and as- 
sembling together when they choose in a becoming, 
orderly, and peaceable manner, to offer up their devo- 
tions, and encourage one another in their christian 
course, by a rational interchange of pious sentiments. 



74 



and sincere endeavours to serve God. Why should 
they be deprived of the advantages and delights of 
social worship? No one will deny, that they are ca- 
pable of feeling and estimating these advantages, and 
even in a much higher degree, than the other sex. 

You censure them for not using "the authorized 
prayers of the church" on such occasions. But is this 
reasonable? How many are there who think it their 
duty not to use forms of prayer? How many, to whose 
spiritual condition none of the church prayers are 
applicable? Would you have such persons violate 
what they consider their duty, because the "spirit of 
the church institutions frowns upon them" and forego 
the propriety, as well as comfort, of addressing their 
Maker in the genuine language of the heart? And is 
not a woman as capable of expressing this language, 
as a man? 

In making these remarks, I am very far from wish- 
ing to defend any irregularities or improprieties in 
the mode of religious worship. I only wish to state, 
that "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" 
that it is the sincere, and not the formal worshipper, 
with whom God is pleased; and that no individual of 
either sex, can justly be restrained from a free and 
rational exercise of every privilege, which is derived 
from the laws of nature and of religion. 

I hope you will pardon me for introducing here a 
short extract from a sermon of one of the most elo- 
quent preachers, enlightened men, and pious chris- 
tians, whom this or any other age has known. The 
subject of the discourse is, "The influence of the gos- 
pel on the character and condition of the female sex." 
The passage, which I am about to select, has refer- 



75 



eiice to the tendency of the female mind to religious 
sensibility, and its proneness to receive religious im- 
pressions. After speaking of the tenderness with 
which our Saviour always treated women, and of 
their devoteduess to him, even after he had been for- 
saken by his disciples and all his friends — of their fol- 
lowing him to the cross and watching at his sepul- 
chre — the preacher addresses the female part of his 
audience in the following words. 

'•It is infinitely honourable to your character, that 
you ever feel a secret sympathy with a religion, 
which unlocks all the sources of benevolent affection, 
which smiles on every exercise of compassion, and 
every act of kindness. We may say too, perhaps, 
that your hearts, not hardened by the possession of 
power, the paius of avarice, or the emulations of public 
life, are more alive to the accents of pardon by Jesus 
Christ, more awake to the glories of the invisible 
world. The gospel came to throw a charm over do- 
mestic life; and, in retirement, the first objects which 
it found, were mothers and their children. It came 
to bind up the broken hearted; and for that office wo- 
man was always best prepared. It came to heal the 
sick; and woman was already waiting at. their conches. 
It came to open the gates of life on the languid eye 
of the dying penitent, and woman was every where 
to be seen, softly tending at the pillow, and closing 
the eyes of the departing. 

"With this superior susceptibility of religious im- 
pression, and aptitude to the practical duties of the 
gospel, I know, there are evils associated, against 
which it is sometimes difficult to guard. Sensibility 
degenerates into weakness; and religious awe into su- 



76 

perstition, in your sex, oftener, perhaps, than in ours; 
yet, with all these dangers and inconveniences, I be- 
lieve, that if Christianity should be compelled to flee 
from the mansions of the great, the academies of the 
philosophers, the halls of the legislators, or the throng 
of busy men, we should find her last and purest re- 
treat with woman at the fireside; her last altar would 
be the female heart; her last audience would be the 
children gathered round the knees of a mother; her 
sacrifice, the secret prayer escaping in silence from 
her lips, and heard, perhaps, only at the throne of 
God."* 

I will conclude this letter w ith one or two observa- 
tions on the Festivals and Fasts of the episcopal 
church. In Nelson's book on this subject, it is said, 
"these are of ecclesiastical institution, and conson- 
ant to the practice of the primitive church. "f In the 
same book are enumerated, besides the sabbath, 
forty-seven days of public worship, to which are at- 
tached the names of saints, angels, and other titles of 
no very obvious import. 

Let me ask what authority there is in the Bible for 
commemorating saints and angels, and especially 
for incorporating forms of such a commemoration iuto 
a church service, and connecting them with the wor- 
ship of God? You can find neither precept nor ex- 
ample in the word of God, in which the vestige of 
such a practice appears. What is meant by its being 
an "ecclesiastical institution?" It originated in the 
strong inclination of the Gentile converts to adopt the 

* Buckminster's Sermons, first edition, p. 388. 
f Festivals and Fasts, p. 63. 



77 

forms of christian worship to the rites and cerenio* 
nies, to which they had been accustomed when hea- 
thens. Saints and martyrs were substituted for hea- 
then gods. This has been fully shown by Causobon, 
Whiston, and especially Mr. Mede, iu his "Aposta- 
cy of the Latter Times." He cites a striking pas- 
sage from Theodoret. "Our Lord God hath brought 
his dead (martyrs) iuto the room and place of your 
gods, whom he hath sent off, and given their honour 
to his martyrs. For instead of the feasts of Jupiter 
and Bacchus, are now celebrated the festivals of 
Peter and Paul, and Thomas, and Sergius, and other 
holy martyrs."* 

Since this is the origin of these festivals, it would 
seem the duty of the church rather to abolish, than 
perpetuate them. There is no evidence in history 
of any saints' days being observed, till after the se- 
cond century; and yet we are told "this institution is 
consonant to the practice of the primitive church." 
Such broad assertions without proof will satisfy those, 
and those only, who think credulity a christian virtue; 
free inquiry, a crime; and submission to the authority 
of the church, a compliance with a divine command. f 

I have thus pointed out some of the particulars iu 
the forms of the episcopal church, which distinguish 

* See Peirce's Vindication, Part Third, c. xi. 

t The celebration of saints' days is taken entirely from the 
church of Rome. In speaking of Burnet's account of the views 
of the church of England on this subject. Bossuet observes, "he 
every where, and in all things, justifies us; and they, who object 
to us that we follow the commandments of men, may bring the 
same objection against the English church. This church will 
vindicate us." Hist, des Var#liv. vii. $ 91. 
11 



78 



it from most other Protestant churches, and some of 
which I do not find warranted in scripture. It would 
have been gratifying to see these explained and vin- 
dicated in your discourse. It will be a difficult thing 
for any of your readers to tell why they are "Protes- 
tant Episcopal Churchmen," till they can see remov- 
ed the formidable objections, which rest against these 
parts of the church service, and be convinced from 
clear evidence, that the whole is built on the simple 
truths of the gospel. 



Reverend and dear sir, 

I propose next to consider that part of the 
twentieth article, which asserts, that "the church hath 
authority in controversies of faith." This you pass 
over entirely; yet, if I am not mistaken, there is no 
one thing in which the episcopal church differs more 
essentially from Protestant churches in general. Few 
churches, I believe, assume, as a fundamental doc- 
trine, the right and authority of deciding in matters 
of faith. 

Some of your readers, I am sure, would have 
thanked you, if you had have told them, whence the 
church derives this authority. To the present episco- 
pal church it must have been communicated by the 
"archbishops and bishops of both provinces, and the 
whole clergy," assembled in convocation in the 
reign of king Edward the Sixth. But from whom 
did they receive this unusual power? From the king 
and parliament on the one hand, and the church of 
Rome on the other. What authority had the king 
and parliament over the faith, and conscience, and 
spiritual concerns of men? None at all. What an- 



80 



thority had the church of Rome? One of the articles 
framed by this same "convocation" declares, "the 
church of Rome hath erred, not only in her living and 
manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.'* 
You would not be willing to allow, that any authority 
to decide in controversies of faith could be derived 
from a church, which had already departed from the 
faith, and which you say, in your discourse, had 
adopted "ceremonies and doctrines neither taught in 
scripture, nor consistent with its purity." Although 
you have attempted to prove, that the true order of 
the ministry descended through this church, which 
had so far receded from the scriptures, you will 
scarcely speak with equal confidence concerning rules 
of faith. The episcopal church has derived no au- 
thority, then, either from kings, parliaments, or any 
civil institutions, or from any other church. 

Let us go to the scriptures. Where ha9 our Sa- 
viour, or his apostles, given authority to any man, or 
any number of men, to prescribe articles of belief, and 
judge men for their opinions? Why should it have 
been a command of our Lord to "search the scrip- 
tures," to "hear and understand," if others are to 
search and understand for us? If he intended the task 
of examining, thinking, deciding, and judging, should 
be confined to a few favoured persons, who should 
fix on themselves the name of the church, why has he 
given no intimations of such an intention? This would 
have secured much peace and comfort to many anx- 
ious inquirers, who have thought it their duty to search 
with prayerful earnestness for the true meaning of the 
scriptures, and to adopt from knowledge and convic- 
tion the principles of their faith. 



81 



All doubts and anxieties on this subject might thus 
be easily removed; for as soon as it were believed, that 
the church has authority to fix the true meaning of 
scripture, nothing would remain but to "believe as the 
church believes." Instead of searching the scrip- 
tures, it would only be necessary to search the arti- 
cles and creeds. The Bible might be laid aside; for 
why should it be read, if all its important truths can 
be found in a much smaller compass? 

But our Saviour has given no authority to any man, 
or to any church, to decide on the meaning of scrip- 
ture, and impose their decisions on the conscience and 
understanding of others. Wherever such an author- 
ity is set up, it is assumed; and wherever it attempts 
to enforce its decrees, or influence, either directly or 
indirectly, the opinions of others, it makes an un- 
warrantable encroachment on the freedom of chris- 
tians. For what reason did our Saviour, with great 
earnestness, ask the question, "why even of your- 
selves judge ye not what is right," if we are to re- 
sign the exercise of our judgment, and rely on the 
authority of the church? 

I know it has been maintained by many episcopa- 
lians, who are unwilling to admit the construction, 
which this article naturally bears, that it is not to be 
understood as it is written. They would not have it 
mean any thing, except when compared with another 
part of the same article, which says, "it Is not lawful 
for the church to ordain any thing, that is contrary to 
God's word written." 

From this it is argued, that although the church 
has authority in controversies of faith, yet it cannot 
impose any thing, which is not contained in the 



8£ 

scriptures. But it is important to inquire, who is to 
be the judge in this case? The church has been care- 
ful to settle this point. What is it to "have authority 
in controversies of faith/' but to have authority to de- 
termine what is the true faith? The amount of the 
whole, then, is this; — the church is not to impose any 
articles of faith, which are contrary to the word of 
God; but the church is to determine what is, and what 
is not, contrary to the word of (rod. On any occa- 
sion of controversy, there can be only two parties, of 
which the church is one. They both appeal to the 
scriptures, and the church assumes the authority of 
deciding what the scriptures mean; and thus becomes 
a judge in its own cause. 

If this were not obvious from the nature of the 
thing, it is abundantly proved by direct evidence con- 
tained in the articles and canons of the church. In 
the eighth article the church affirms, that "the Nicene 
creed, and that which is commonly called the apos- 
tles 9 creed, ought thoroughly to be received and be- 
lieved: for they may be proved by most certain war- 
rants of holy scripture." Now there are some things 
in one of these creeds especially, which, so far from 
being proved by "certain warrants of scripture," 
many christians think are directly contrary to scrip- 
ture, and subversive of its simplest aud purest doc- 
trines. Yet the church has passed its judgment, 
and by this all its members must abide. 

If you will examine the decisions of the church in 
all controversies of faith, both with the Catholics 
and Puritans, I believe you will find it has always 
enforced the doctrines of its articles and creeds, not- 
withstanding the saving clause in the twentieth arti- 



83 



cle, that ^it is not lawful to ordain any thing contra- 
ry to GrocPs word written." 

The spirit of this doctrine, respecting authority in 
matters of faith, is clearly illustrated in the canons of 
the English church. The candidate for ordination, 
among other things, is required to subscribe to the 
following words, namely, "that the Book of Common 
Prayer, and of ordering of bishops, priests, and dea- 
cons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of 
God; and that he acknowledged all and every the 
articles therein contained, to be agreeable to the 
word of God." After this acknowledgment, it is 
hardly necessary to inquire what will be his deci- 
sions respecting the import of the word of God in any 
controversies of faith. 

The American form differs a little from this in 
words, but not in substance. By the tenth article of the 
Ecclesiastical Constitution, the candidate makes the 
following engagement; "I do solemnly engage to con- 
form to the doctrines and worship of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in these United States." 

From these terms of subscription, it appears, that 
ministers at the time of ordination, not only profess a 
present belief in the doctrines of the church, but "so- 
lemnly engage to conform" to these doctrines. In 
case of any controversy on these subjects, therefore, 
they must either violate their solemn engagement, or 
decide in favour of the standing doctrines of the 
church, whatever may be the actual sense of scrip- 
ture. It is in effect making the articles the criterion, 
by which the scriptures are to be explained. 

If a doubt can longer remain, as to what is meant 
by the churchy when it professes to have authority 



84 



in controversies of faith, it will be removed by recur* 
ring to those canons of the English church, which re- 
late to excommunication. According to the fifth 
canon, "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that any 
of the nine and thirty articles agreed upon— -for avoid- 
ing diversities of opinions, and for the establishing 
of consent, touching true religion, are in any sort su- 
perstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with 
a good conscience subscribe unto; let him be excom- 
municated ipso facto." 

I do not say, that the American church is so severe 
in its denunciations of those, who, after they have 
joined the church, may be so unfortunate as to change 
their opinions in regard to some of the articles; yet so 
far as relates to the point in question, there is no dif- 
ference. This is evident from the eighth article, and 
the form of subscription above quoted; and also from 
what is stated in another place, namely, that in the 
judgment of the church, "there be not any thing in 
the Liturgy contrary to the word of God, or to sound 
doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a good 
conscience subscribe unto." It is not necessary to 
seek any further to know, in what sense the church 
considers itself to have authority in controversies of 
faith.* 

* The following extracts from Daubney's Guide to the Church, 
will serve further to illustrate this subject. Daubney's work is 
written with much good temper and apparent candour, and I be- 
lieve is of high authority in the church. It is among those books, 
which were recommended by the "house of bishops in the conven- 
tion of 1804," to students in theology. 

The author says, "Ever since the era of the reformation, the 
church of England has been considered to be the firmest bulwark 



85 



If we must have some creed, or fixed formulary of 
belief, distinct from the plain letter of scripture, be- 
fore we can have a regular church, it is worth while 
to inquire from what source it is to be obtained. If 
we are to rely on authority, how are we to determine 
what shall be that authority? Shall it be some par- 
ticular person in whose intelligence, honesty, and 
judgment we place unlimited confidence? But this 
person depended on a third, and this third on a 
fourth. Where shall we stop? Shall we go back to 
ecclesiastical assemblies, synods, and councils? But 

0/ Protestantism. So far as the dissenter agrees with her in protest- 
ing against the errors of the Romish church, so far he may be said 
to be at unity with her; but when that right, which justifies the dis- 
sension, in common with the church of England, in separating 
from a corrupt branch of the christian church, is extended to jus- 
tify his separation from a branch of the church confessedly not in 
the same state of corruption, and of whose members, no unlawful 
terms of communion are required; and to authorize his setting up 
a church of his own, independent of episcopal government, — the 
dissenter quits the ground of Protestanism, and places himself 
upon that of schism; and in such case he becomes a schismatic, 
grafted upon a Protestant." p. 1 34. 

We see from this account, in what estimation the Protestant 
Episcopal Church holds itself, and what judgment it passes on 
those, who dissent. What are those unfortunate christians to do, 
who find many corruptions even in this "branch of the church," and 
many "unlawful terms of communion," with which they cannot 
conscientiously comply? Are they to put conscience, the sense of 
duty, and religious principle, out of the question? Or shall they 
retain these, and run the fearful hazard of being branded by the 
church with the charitable name of schismatics. 

But this advocate for the church has not the most profound re- 
spect for the freedom of conscience, or the right of private judg- 
ment. He tells us, that "the idea, which has for some time pre- 
vailed, that christian liberty gives every man a right to worship 
i% 



86 

these all differed one from the other. One revoked^ 
altered, or annulled what another had decreed. What 
articles of faith, among the multitude of contradictory 
ones, which have been sent out under the authority of 
great names, shall we adopt.* Shall we take a 
creed of the third, tenth, or eighteenth century? 

Until this point shall be settled by some fair course 
of reasoning, had we not best be contented to receive 
our faith from the Bible? Why should we have a 
greater fondness for wandering away after the doc- 
trines and speculations of men, than for consulting 
and confiding in the words of Jesus Christ and bis 
apostles? What more do we want? Can we go to a 
purer source? If the systems of faith, which men 
have drawn up, contain any thing more or less than 
the scriptures, they will deceive and mislead us; if 
they contain precisely what the scriptures contain, 
we do not need them. 

God in his own way, appears to have been a.dm\tted>without suf- 
ficient examination." p. 116. And again; "we do not scruple to 
affirm, that every man is not qualified to form a judgment for him- 
self in religious matters" p. 138. 

From these extracts it is perceived, that the ground, which this 
writer takes, is in perfect accordance with the views given above 
of the doctrine of the church, in regard to its authority in matters 
of faith. If he is to be considered a faithful interpreter, all men 
who separate are accounted schismatics in the estimation of the 
church; they are incapable of judging for themselves; and have no 
right to worship God "in their own way," whatever may be the dic- 
tates of their understanding, or conscience. 

* In the second part of King's Constitutions of the Primitive 
Church, may be seen no less than twelve different creeds, which 
were in use before the end of the third century. 



87 



On this subject, Chilling worth has some excellent 
remarks in his controversy with the Catholics. "The 
Bible, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants. 
I see plainly and with my own eyes, that there are 
popes against popes, councils against councils, some 
Fathers against others, the same Fathers against 
themselves, a consent of Fathers of one age against 
a consent of Fathers of another age, the church of one 
age against the church of another age. In a word, 
there is no sufficient certainty, but only of scripture, 
for any considering man to build upon."* Such were 
the sentiments of one of the ablest men of the age in 
which he lived, who, although he did not believe in 
the divine right of episcopacy, was a powerful de- 
fender of the Protestant cause, and a firm supporter 
of the English church. 

Why we should choose to go to the ancient Fa- 
thers for our religious opinions; why we should adopt 
the decrees of factious councils, or the dogmas of the 
dark ages, while we have the treasures of divine 
truth in our possession, are questions not easy to be 
answered. 

The episcopal church in the United States thought 
it necessary to have only two creeds, the Apostles' 
and the Nicene. Why the convention left out the 
Athanasian creed we are not told. In regard to doc- 
trine it differs in nothing from the Nicene. It has, 
also, generally been thought to contain a more ex- 
plicit statement of the doctrine of the trinity, as held 
by the church, than is any where else to be found. 
The three uncharitable, or as they have been called, 

* Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, &c. chap.vi. § 56. 



88 



"damnatory" clauses, might have been omitted, with- 
out injuring it as a summary of faith. And if the 
doctrines set forth in these two last mentioned creeds, 
be actually the vital truths of scripture, the more 
clearly they are stated, and the mure strongly they are 
enforced, the better.* 

If we may judge from the journals of the different 
American conventions, no little difficulty was expe- 
rienced in settling this affair of the creeds, as well as 
in altering some other parts of the Book of Common 

*As the Athanasian creed is a curiosity not often to be 
met with, since it has been left out of the Book of Common 
Prayer, I doubt not that some persons, into whose hands 
these letters may fall, will be gratified to see it at full length. I 
insert it the more readily, because it has been considered a mas- 
terly exposition of the views of the church, in regard to one of its 
most important doctrines. Archbishop Seeker observes, in speak- 
ing of this creed, (Works, vol. iii. p. 434) "the doctrines are unde- 
niably the same with those, that are contained in the articles of the 
church, only here they are somewhat more distinctly set forth to 
prevent equivocation" 

ATHANASIAN CREED. 

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that 
he hold the Catholic faith. 

W T hich faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, 
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 

And the Catholic faith is this, That we worship one God in 
trinity, and trinity in unity. 

Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. 

For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and 
another of the Holy Ghost. 

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. 

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is- the Holy 
Ghost. 



89 



Prayer. It was laid down as a fundamental princi- 
ple, that the apostolic succession could be kept up 
only through the English bishops; and, therefore, 
whatever alterations might be made in the church 
service, they must be such as would be sanctioned in 
England. In this way, the members of the conven- 
tions were trammelled and constrained, and actually 
deterred from making such alterations as their good 
sense induced them to think necessary. 

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost 
uncreate. 

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and 
the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. 

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eter- 
nal; 

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. 

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three un- 
created; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. 

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the 
Holy Ghost Almighty; 

And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. 

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is 
God; 

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 
So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy 
Ghost Lord; 

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. 

For like as we are compelled by the christian verity, to acknow- 
ledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 

So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be 
three Gods, or three Lords. 

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. 

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but be- 
gotten. 

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made* 
aor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 



90 



The first convention of the Protestaut Episcopal 
Church was held at Philadelphia in September, 
1785. It consisted of clerical and lay delegates from 
the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. 
By this convention, the thirty-nine articles were re- 
duced to twenty; the Athanasian and Nicene creeds 
were rejected; the clause in the Apostles' creed, "he 
descended into hell," was omitted; and various other 
omissions and changes were made in different parts of 

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three 
Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. 

And in this trinity none is afore or after other, none is greater 
or less than another; 

But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co- 
equal. 

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and 
the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 

He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. 

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he 
also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, That our 
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; 

God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; 
and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; 

Perfect God, and perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human 
flesh subsisting; 

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to 
the Father, as touching his manhood. 

Who although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one 

Christ; 

One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking 
of the manhood into God; 

One altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of 
person. 

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God an d 
man is one Christ; 



91 



the Liturgy. A committee was appointed to publish 
the Prayer Book with these alterations.* 

The convention also agreed to an Ecclesiastical 
Constitution for the government of the church. The 
following was the eighth article. "Every clergyman, 
whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, shall be 
amenable to the authority of the convention in the 
state to which he belongs, so far as relates to sus- 
pension or removal from office; and the convention in 
each state shall institute rules for their conduct, and 
an equitable mode of trial." It was also resolved by 
the convention "to address the archbishops and bi- 

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again 
the third day from the dead; 

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right handof the 
Father, God Almighty; from whence he shall come to judge the 
quick and the dead. 

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and 
shall give account for their own works. 

And they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting; 
and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. 

This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faith- 
fully he cannot be saved. 

* This book was printed, and has usually been called the 
"Prayer Book of 1785." As it was left discretional with the 
churches to use it or not, it seems not to have been generally 
adopted. The English Prayer Book was for the most part used, 
with such alterations only, in the public forms, as the revolution 
had rendered necessary. No uniformity existed till the year 
1790, when the present Book of Common Prayer was received into 
all the churches, by order of the convention. 

The twenty articles of the book of 1785 differ very little from 
the thirty-nine, in points of doctrine and faith. The doctrine of 
the trinity is expressed in somewhat such language, as it is in the 
Nicene creed; two of the old articles are sometimes incorporated 



92 

shops of the church of England, requesting them to 
confer the episcopal character on such persons as 
shall be chosen and recommended to them for that 
purpose, from the conventions of their church in their 
respective states." 

At a second convention held at Philadelphia, in 
June of the next year, a letter from the archbishop 
and bishops of the church of England was read. In 
this letter they approve of the application made to 
them to confer the episcopal character, but express 
some hesitation on account of the changes, which 
had been made in the Liturgy. u While we are anx- 
ious," say they, "to give every proof, not only of our 
brotherly affections, but of our facility in forwarding 
your wishes, we cannot but be extremely cautious, 
lest we should be the instruments of establishing an 
ecclesiastical system, which will be called a branch 
of the church of England, but afterwards may appear 
to have departed from it essentially, either in doctrine 
or discipline." 

By this convention it was "resolved unanimously, 
that it be recommended to this church in the states 
here represented, not to receive to the pastoral charge 
within their respective limits, clergymen professing 
canonical subjection to any bishop, in any state or 
country, other than those bishops who may be duly 

into one; and some of the references to the ancient heresies are 
omitted. 

In regard to the judgment of the church in controversies of faith, 
they are not so positive as the old articles. The following is from 
the thirteenth article. "General councils and churches are liable 
to err, and have erred, both in matters of faith and doctrine, as 
well as in their ceremonies." 



08 

settled in the states represented in this convention.* 
An addition was also made to the eighth article of the 
constitution, above quoted, relative to the trial of bi- 
shops, presbyters, and deacons. It was found, that in 
its original construction, too much authority was 
given to the conventions. The episcopal dignity was 
not sufficiently respected. To remove this difficulty, 
the following clause was added, "And at every trial 
of a bishop, there shall be one or more of the episco- 
pal order present; and none but a bishop shall pro- 
nounce sentence of deposition or degradation from the 
ministry on any clergyman, whether bishop, presby- 
ter, or deacon."* It was not enough, that the con- 
ventions should "institute rules for an equitable mode 
of trial" unless the application of these rules were 
sanctioned by the voice of a bishop. 

The convention dissolved, after having agreed on 
an answer to the archbishops and bishops of the En- 
glish church, in which they repeat their request to 
receive from them the episcopal character, and to 
"remove the present hesitation, send the proposed 
Ecclesiastical Constitution, and Book of Common 
Prayer." 

A third convention was held at Wilmington in De- 
laware, October, 1786. The principal object of this 
convention was to take into consideration letters,, 
which had lately been received from the archbishops 
of England, in reply to the answer above mentioned. 
In one of these letters the archbishops state, "that it 

* The article still remains in this form, and makes the sixth 
article of the constitution of the church. 

>pe Constitution, Canons, &c. Philadelphia, 1813, p. 45. 
13 



94 



was impossible not to observe with concern, that, if 
the essential doctrines of our common faith were re- 
tained, less respect however was paid to our Liturgy 
than its own excellence, and your declared attach- 
ment to it, had led us to expect; not to mention a va- 
riety of verbal alterations, of the necessity or pro- 
priety of which we are by no means satisfied; we saw 
with grief, that two of the confessions of our chris- 
tian faith, respectable for their antiquity, have been 
entirely laid aside; and that even in that which is 
called the Apostles' creed, an article is omitted, which 
was thought necessary to be inserted, with a view to 
a particular heresy, in a very early age of the church, 
and has ever since had the sanction of universal re- 
ception." 

After expressing a wish to continue in spiritual 
communion with the American church, and a "sincere 
desire to complete the orders of their ministry," they 
add, "we therefore most earnestly exhort you, that 
you restore to its integrity the Apostles' creed, in which 
you have omitted an article merely, as it seems, from 
misapprehension of the sense in which it is under- 
stood by our church; nor can we help adding, that 
we hope you will think it but a decent proof of the 
attachment you possess to the services of our Liturgy, 
to give to the other two creeds a place in your Book 
of Common Prayer, even though the use of them 
should be left discretional." 

The archbishops also complain of the eighth arti- 
cle of the Ecclesiastical Constitution, "and strongly 
represent, that it appears to them to be a degradation 
of the clerical, and still more of the episcopal char- 
acter;" and this, notwithstanding all trials were to be 



95 



conducted by the rules of equity. But happily this 
article had already been altered, before their letter 
arrived. 

In a letter from the archbishop of Canterbury, re- 
ceived at the same time, it is said, "but whether we 
can consecrate any (bishop) or not, must yet depend 
on the answers we may receive to what we have 
written." 

These letters produced the effect, which the En- 
glish bishops desired. The convention immediately 
reconsidered their former doings. They admitted 
unanimously the Nicene creed; they received the 
clause into the Apostles' creed, which they had for 
the best of reasons rejected; and even there were some 
advocates for the restoration of the Athauasian creed, 
with all its uncharitable denunciations.* 

I have been thus particular in this historical sketch 
of the proceedings of the first conventions, that it may 
be seen by what motives they were influenced in mak- 
ing the alterations, which they finally adopted. Their 
first decisions were no doubt such as their understand- 
ing, their unbiassed reflections, and their knowledge 
of the scriptures prompted them to make. What 
could induce them to abandon opinions, which they 
had deliberately formed on a subject of the most im- 
portant and solemn nature? The only reason, which 
can be discovered, was the good will and pleasure of 
the archbishops of the English church. The members 
of the conventions left every thing else behind, in 
pursuit of the phantom of episcopacy. Instead of ap- 

* See "Proceedings of the general conventions of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church in the United States of America;" and 
Lindsey's Vindicise Priestleianse, § 2, p. 20. et seqq. 



96 



pealing to the gospel of Christ, and acting solely upon 
the principles of reason and scripture, they squared 
their proceedings by a letter from the archbishop of 
Canterbury. In their view, episcopacy seems to have 
been the great bulwark of religion, without which, 
the whole fabric must fall. Tq secure this bulwark, 
no sacrifices were to be thought too great. 

As to the Apostles' creed, so called, it has very 
little in it objectionable, except the name, and the 
clause mentioned above. Calling it by the name of the 
apostles may lead some into the mistaken uotion, that 
it was made by them. This notion was advanced 
and defended by some of the later Fathers, who even 
went so far as to say, that each apostle contributed a 
part. Although the substance of this creed, express- 
ed in different forms, is confessedly very ancient, yet 
nothing was said of its apostolical origin, till nearly 
four hundred years after the time of the apostles, 
when it was first mentioned by Ambrose. It might, 
therefore, with much more propriety, be called the 
creed of the Fathers, than of the apostles. Bishop 
Burnet, bishop Pearson, and others agree, that the 
clause of Christ's descent into hell, was not added 
till the fifth century.* 

As the scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith, and 
all creeds are formed by human invention, and en- 
forced by human authority, have we not good reason 
to suspect their utility? Any other fixed formulary of 
belief, than the word of God itself, must have on the 
clergy an extremely injurious, and sometimes an 
immoral tendency. At the best, it must keep up au 
exclusive spirit, and a bigoted attachment to the faith 

* Pearson on the Creed, vol, i. p. 341. ii. p. 287. 



97 



and ordinances of the particular church to which thej 
happen to belong. 

Archdeacon Paley says of creeds, "they check in- 
quiry; they violate liberty; they ensnare the con- 
sciences of the clergy by holding out temptations to 
prevarication." Nothing can be more obvious, than 
these consequences. A clergyman, who has been or- 
dained only on condition of expressing a belief, that 
the articles of his church are agreeable to the word 
of (rod, and of "solemnly engaging to conform to the 
doctrines" contained in these articles, cannot after- 
wards change his mind, and retain his situation, 
without being guilty of prevarication, dishonesty, or 
fraud. 

The only way for him to keep a quiet conscience, 
is, to shut up his Bible, and fix his eyes on the arti- 
cles of the church. If he be ignorant, he must re- 
main ignorant; if in the dark, he must take care to 
avoid the light. If he read the Bible, it must never 
be with a view to inquire for truth, but only to 
strengthen his former opinions. 

The amiable and excellent Dr. Lindsey retained 
his place for sometime in the church, after he was 
convinced, that the doctrine of the trinity was unscrip- 
tural. He still adhered to the articles, and satisfied 
his conscience by explaining the trinity according to 
the Sabellian theorv, or the modal scheme of Dr, 
Wallis. Upon more serious reflection, however, be 
rejected this mode of explanation as a subterfuge, to 
which he could not persuade himself that he ought to 
resort, aud retired from the church. It is well known, 
that many clergymen in the English church, from the 
time of Dr. Wallis to the present day, have entertain- 



98 

ed similar sentiments in regard to the trinity, and sa- 
tisfied themselves with the same kind of explanations. 
By concealment, prevarication, and a forced construc- 
tion of the articles, they have contrived to keep up a 
show of compliance with the creeds and articles of 
the church. 

These consequences are not so much chargeable on 
individuals, as on the church, which imposes such re- 
strictions on its ministers. Why should these temp- 
tations be thrown in their way? If you deprive men 
of their liberty, you cannot suppose they will be very 
choice in the means they use to throw off their shac- 
kles, and escape from thraldom; — and of all the va- 
rious kinds of servitude, the slavery of conscience 
and of opinion is the most degrading, and to a mind 
which has a single spark of its native energy left, the 
most difficult to be endured. 

Many persons of the highest eminence for talents, 
attainments, and excellence, both among the clergy 
and laity, who have been much attached to the forms 
of the English church, but who could not reconcile 
themselves to its creeds, and especially to the doc- 
trine of the trinity, have thought it their duty to se- 
cede, and unite themselves to such societies, as allow 
a freedom of opinion, and require no other form of 
faith, than that, which is contained in the sacred wri- 
tings. Memorable examples are presented in Mr. 
Emlyn, Dr. Lindsey, Dr. Jebb, the late duke of Graf- 
ton, sir George Savile, and others. 

Some others, not less conscientious or enlightened, 
although of decided Unitarian principles, have con- 
sidered it their duty, for various reasons, to remain in 
the church. Newton a^id Locke, although Unita- 



99 



nans, adhered to the established worship. Dr. 
Samuel Clarke, one of the most distinguished scho- 
lars and divines, whom the church has ever possess- 
ed, did not forsake the established forms, although 
he publicly avowed himself to be a Unitarian, and 
proposed such alterations in the Liturgy, as would 
enable christians of all denominations to joiu con- 
scientiously in the church service.* Archdeacon 
Blackburn, Shipley, bishop of St. Asaph, and Law, 
bishop of Carlisle, who are known not to have been 
of the orthodox faith in regard to the trinity, always 
remained in the established church. f 

There was nothing unjustifiable, perhaps, in the 
course which these men pursued, when their senti- 
ments were publicly known. Their sense of duty, 
their wish to be extensively useful, their early attach- 
ments, and desire for peace in the church, were pro- 
bably such motives as enabled them to forego the ad- 
ditional comfort and satisfaction, which they might 
derive from a more congenial mode of worship, and 
to use their best diligence in employing the means 
of doing good, which providence had put in their 
power. But all the examples here introduced afford 
a practical comment on the inexpediency, and inju- 
rious tendency, of human forms of belief, to which 

* When Dr. Clarke took the degree of doctor in divinity at 
Cambridge, he delivered and defended a thesis on the following 
proposition. "No article of the christian faith, delivered in the 
sacred scriptures, is contrary to right reason." Nullum Fidei 
Christianse Dogma in S. Scripturis traditum est rectee rationi 
dissentaneum. 

t See Belsham's Letters to the bishop of London, second edi- 
tion, p. as. 



100 



bumble, pious, and enlightened christians of every de^ 
nomination cannot subscribe. 

The evils of creeds are not felt with less force by 
the people, than the clergy. The injury is greater, 
as it applies to them, because more extensive. If the 
people can be persuaded, that all the important doc- 
trines of religion are comprised in the formularies of 
the church, and that these formularies have been drawn 
up, and are still taught and explained by men, who 
have descended in a regular succession from the apos- 
tles, they will not only think it unnecessary, but even 
dangerous to inquire further. To look into the opin- 
ions of other christians, to examine their arguments, 
and study the scriptures to know on what grounds 
they build their opinions, would be an implied ac- 
knowledgment, that the church may not have the 
whole truth on its side. The consequence must be, 
that the Bible will be little read. It will become a 
book of secondary importance. I believe, indeed, the 
instances are not rare, in which the Prayer Book is 
quoted by zealous churchmen, in common conversa- 
tion, on points of controversy, with scarcely less re- 
verence, than the Bible itself. 

The times have gone by, when an archbishop of 
Canterbury said, "a christian must not inquire about 
the truth of any thing, which the church believes, but 
is simply to believe whatever the Romish church pro- 
fesseth to believe," yet it is the same thing in reality, 
if not in words, for a bishop or minister of the present 
day to tell his people, that the articles of the church 
have been established by men, possessing apostolical 
authority, and contain every thing essential to salva- 
tion. When he advises his people not to become ac- 



101 



quainted with the sentiments of christians of other de- 
nominations, and represents to them the danger of 
reading their books; when he takes pains to confine 
their religious knowledge to the Book of Common 
Prayer, and to such interpretations of the scripture 
only, as are consistent with this hook; when he tells 
them, that no persons can be considered as christian 
ministers, who have not been ordained according to the 
canons of the church, and that the ordinances of our 
holy religion, performed by such persons, are unscrip- 
tural and invalid, — when he assumes the right grave- 
ly to impress these things on the minds of the people, 
what else does he, but urge the implicit authority of 
the church, and virtually take away from every one 
belonging to it the right of private judgment? 

I would not be understood to intimate, that such 
is the practice of all bishops and ministers; but I 
think it will not be denied, that it is the practice of 
some. Perhaps they are not to be censured on this 
account. It is to be presumed they act conscientious- 
ly; and what more can be required of a man, than to 
do what he sincerely believes his duty? He may 
think such means necessary to preserve the dignity 
and purity of the church. But does it not argue 
some defect in the principles of a church, which re- 
quires, or even allows its ministers to resort to such 
means of supporting its cause? 

The people are the sufferers. They are made 
to rest satisfied with slender religious attainments, 
and to contract unworthy prejudices against their 
fellow christians of other denominations. It is, also, 
to be feared, that they too often lose much of the 
spirit of religion, in their zeal for the peculiar tenets 
14 



102 



of the church; as they are taught, by what they are 
made to believe the highest authority, to receive these 
tenets as the necessary truths of scripture. Ministers 
of the gospel should not be accessary to such conse- 
quences as these; and it is much to be lamented, that 
the principles of any church should have a tendency 
to diminish the value of religious knowledge in the 
estimation of its members, to weaken the ties of bro- 
therly kindness, or to narrow the bounds of christian 
charity. 

That is a false argument, which would prove it to 
be a recommendation to the episcopal church, that it 
possesses "a standard, which can neither be removed 
nor shaken — an unalterable test of the soundness of 
its doctrines."* This is one of the strongest argu- 
ments, which can possibly be used against the system 
of the church. That it forces on its members an "un- 
shaken standard" of faith, is the very thing, which all 
christians, who value the scriptures, and the freedom 
of conscience, must deprecate. It implies, that the 
persons who formed this standard in the reign of Ed- 
ward VI. were empowered by a divine commission 
for this purpose, and received an illumination from 
<above, to enable them to discover the true interpreta- 
tion of the scriptures. No one can rely on this stan- 
dard, till he believes these facts. 

The church of Rome is much more consistent in its 
views of ecclesiastical authority, than the English 
church. The Catholics lay it down as a necessary 
principle, that the church is infallible. This at once 

* Sermon on "Reasons for preferring the Church of England.'* 
Maturin's Sermons, London, 1819, p. 405. 



♦ 

103 



gives authority to tradition, and affords a plausible 
reason for all their ceremonies. They believe, that "as 
Jesus Christ established his church by preaching, — 
the unwritten word was the first rule of Christianity, 
and retained the same authority after the writings of 
the JSew Testament were joined with it. For this 
reason they receive with equal veneration all that was 
taught by the apostles, either in writing or by word 
of mouth."* The church was the sacred depository 
of this unwritten word, and through this channel it 
has been transmitted unimpaired to the present day. 

They suppose the "church to have been established 
by the Almighty, to be the guardian of the scriptures, 
and of tradition; wherefore the church professes to 
say nothing of herself, to invent no new doctrine, and 
only to follow and declare the divine revelation by 
the interior direction of the holy spirit, which is given 
to her as a teacher. It is for this cause, that the 
children of (rod acquiesce in the judgment of the 
church, believing they have received from her mouth 
the oracles of the holy spirit; and it is on account of 
this belief, that after having said in the creed, I 
lieve in the holy spirit, they immediately add, the 
holy catholic church; by which they bind themselves 
to acknowledge the infallible and perpetual truth of 
the universal church, because this church herself, 
which they have always professed to believe, would 
cease to be a church, if it should cease to teach the 
revealed truth of God. To apprehend, therefore, 
that she has abused her power to establish a false- 

* Exposition de la Doctrine de l'Eglise Catholique, par Bossuet, 
Oeuv. Tom. xviii. p. 140. 



104 

hood, is to have no faith in him, by whom she is go- 
verned."* 

Here is consistency. If the church have authority in 
one case, it has in another. If any particular doc- 
trine, rite, or ceremony, is to be received from tradi- 
tion, every doctrine, rite, or ceremony, which cannot 
be traced back to a certain origin, is to be received on 
the same authority. Tradition is worth nothing, 
unless it have been transmitted by an infallible guide. 
Such a guide the church of Rome professes to follow, 
and is, therefore, entirely consistent in believing in 
the divine origin of its institutions. 

But the English church has destroyed this con- 
sistency, by rejecting infallibility, and still retaining 
the authority of tradition. One argument, which you 
bring in favour of the divine origin of episcopacy, as 
we have already seen, is, that the opponents of this 
doctrine, "have never been able to agree upon any one 
period, in which it could, even in their opinion, have 
probably originated." The same argument is used 
by Bossuet to prove the divine origin of all the pecu- 
liarities of the Catholic church;f and it will certain- 
ly apply as well in one case as the other. As far 
as this argument goes, it is certain the church of Eng- 

* lb. p. 141, 142, 143. See also on this subject, The Unerring Au- 
thority of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith, Philadelphia, 
1789, Preliminary Propositions, and p. 75. Bossuet's Exposition, 
translated by Coppinger, New York, 1808, third edition, p. 122 — 
129. 

t "La marque certaine qu'une doctrine vient des apotres, est 
lorsqu' elle est embrassee par toutes les Eglises chretiennes, sans 
qu' on en puisse marquer le commencement." Expos, de la Dock 
de L'Eglise Cath. § 18. 



105 



land had no more reason for retaining episcopacy, 
the ceremony of confirmation, the sign of the cross in 
baptism, and saints' days, as divine institutions, than it 
had for retaining the doctrine of the real presence, 
use of the chrism in confirmation, extreme unction, sa~ 
cramental confession, and many other ceremonies of 
the Catholic church, which it rejected as corruptions. 
The former are as much founded on tradition, as the 
latter; and neither of them can be of any validity, ex- 
cept on the Catholic principle of infallibility. Every 
dissenting church, at the present day, may with as 
much justice give the name of "corruptions" to these 
traditional ceremonies of the English church, as this 
church did to many of the Romish ceremonies which 
it rejected. 

With equal propriety might the bounds of philoso- 
phical, physical, and political science have been fixed 
in the time of king Edward, as a standard of religious 
knowledge. The king and parliament assembled had 
the same authority to establish certain sciences, and to 
decree, that no innovations or improvements should be 
made, as they had to settle the rules of faith in religion. 
They might have decreed, that the earth was im- 
moveable, and the sun, moon, and all the stars were 
whirled around it once in twenty-four hours, that the 
new system of Copernicus was a dangerous heresy, 
which all the king's well meaning subjects should 
carefully avoid. They might have enjoined it as a 
part of the philosophy of the realm, that alchymy and 
astrology were founded on the true principles of na- 
ture, as might be proved "by most certain warrants" 
of physical phenomena; and we should now be edi- 
fied with treatises on the philosopher's stone, trans- 



106 



mutations, and a universal medicine. We should 
have books to tell us what planets ruled at our birth, 
interspersed with appropriate figures of horoscopes, 
schemes of nativity, and positions of the stars. They 
might have decreed, that the schoolmen were the only 
rational metaphysicians, and that every college in the 
kingdom should make the categories, analytics, to- 
pics, and sophistics of Aristotle an essential branch 
of education. 

There would have been just as much propriety in 
fixing rules of belief on these subjects, as there was 
in drawing up the thirty-nine articles, and the for- 
mularies of the church, and setting them forth as a 
standard of religious faith. Newton, and Bacon, and 
Locke, would have been considered meddling dissen- 
ters from the established philosophy; but still, the 
force of truth would have been resistless, and would 
finally have prevailed. So it must be in religion. 
Error may be concealed and protected for a long 
time under the guise of forms, and in the mists of ig- 
norance; but the light of truth will at length pene- 
trate so flimsy a covering, and dissolve the cloud. 

It is said, that creeds hare a tendency to keep 
schism out of the church, by causing all its members 
to think alike. This would be good reasoning, if the 
church were infallible; but on no other supposition. 
Unless it were infallible, there could be no certainty 
of its having the only true faith; and no church should 
claim authority to keep its members in ignorance and 
error to prevent schism. Milton, speaking on this 
subject with particular reference to the doctrines of 
the church, and the scheme of prelacy, observes, "If 
to bring a numb and chill stupidity of soul, an un- 



107 



active blindness of mind upon the people by their 
leaden doctrine, or no doctrine at all; if to persecute 
all knowing and zealous christians by the violence of 
their courts, be to keep away schism, they keep schism 
away indeed; and by this kind of discipline, all Itali- 
an d Spain is as purely and politically kept from 
schism, as England hath been by them. With as good 
plea might the dead palsy boast to a man, 'it is I that 
free you from stitches and pains, and the troublesome 
feeling of cold and heat, of wounds and strokes; if I 
were gone, all these would molest you.' The winter 
might as well vaunt itself against the spring, «I 
destroy all noisome and rank weeds, I keep down 
all pestilent vapours;' yes, and all wholesome herbs, 
and all fresh dews, by your violent and hidebound 
frost; but when the gentle west winds shall open the 
fruitful bosom of the earth, thus overgirded by your 
imprisonment, then the flowers put forth and spring, 
and then the sun shall scatter the mists, and the ma- 
nuring hand of the tiller shall root up all that burdens 
the soil, without thanks to your bondage."* 

These remarks are but too applicable to fixed for- 
mularies of faith of every description. They are 
made and imposed without authority; and any at- 
tempt to force them on the minds of men is an en- 
croachment on the liberty, and an insult to the un- 
derstanding of christians. The apostles took upon 
them no such power. St. Paul enjoins the Galatians 
to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had 
made them free, and not to be entangled again with 

* The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelaty; 
Prose Works, vpl. i. p. 63. 



108 



the yoke of bondage." And to the Corinthians he 
writes, "We have not dominion over your faith, but 
are helpers of your joy; for by faith ye stand." 2 Cor. 
i. 24. — Not by faith in creeds, for this would be giv- 
ing up our liberty, taking upon us a yoke of bondage, 
and submitting to the dominion of others; but by 
faith in the word of God, which all persons are free 
to consult, — and this freedom all must be allowed 
to enjoy, before they can be required to believe or 
obey. 



Reverend and dear sir, 

The second part of your discourse is taken up 
in showing, that you are not a Calvinist, and in at- 
tempting to show, that the articles of the church are 
not calvinistic. I have no wish to go into a contro- 
versy, which has been so long agitated by different 
parties in the episcopal church itself, and which has 
been already more than exhausted; yet I cannot but 
think, that your conclusions on this subject are feebly 
supported by facts, and at the same time so broad and 
positive, as to lead some of your readers into mis- 
take. I propose to do little more, than to quote cer- 
tain passages from the Liturgy, Articles, and Homi- 
lies, and see whether they are not strikingly incon- 
sistent with the sentiments you advance. 

After making various selections from the Confes- 
sion of Faith, to exhibit what you consider the most 
offensive doctrines of Calvinism, and assuring your 
readers, that such are not the doctrines of the church, 
you make the following remarks. 

"Explicit as is the language of the articles and 
services of our church on this head; and strong as is 



110 



the claim, which they make to consistency, nothing 
is more frequent, notwithstanding, on the part of the 
advocates of doctrines peculiarly styled 'calvinis- 
tic/ than the assertion, that such doctrines are main- 
tained in our ninth and seventeenth articles. Never 
was there a more groundless charge. Those articles 
do not in the remotest degree, allude to the funda- 
mental and essential tenets of Calvinism." p. 27. 

Let us inquire, in the first place, what are the 
"fundamental and essential doctrines of Calvinism." 
I believe Calvinism is usually summed up in what 
are called the five points, namely, total depravity, 
election, particular redemption, effectual calling, and 
perseverance of the saints. Whatever language may 
be used in the Confession of Faith, the Institutes of 
Calvin, or any where else, to express and illustrate 
these doctrines, and however unscriptural such lan- 
guage may be, I suppose the substance of the whole 
is contained in these five points. The minor doc- 
trines of Calvinism, such as salvation by grace, justi- 
fication by faith, special influence of the spirit, are to 
be referred to these as their original stock. 

If we examine these points of Calvinism, we shall 
find the two first only to be fundamental doctrines, of 
which the three last are necessary consequences. If 
all men have originally a corrupt nature, which ren- 
ders them worthy of divine wrath and condemnation, 
and if God in his mercy have decreed, according to "his 
everlasting purpose," that a certain number of his 
creatures shall be rescued from this deplorable condi- 
tion and finally be saved; it is a natural and neces- 
sary consequence, that all such persons are redeemed 
by a particular redemption, are effectually called, and 



ill 



wiil persevere to the end. The decree of election ex- 
tends only to particular persons, and therefore the re- 
demption it procures is a particular redemption; it is 
an absolute decree, and therefore all whom it calls, are 
effectually called; it is an immutable decree, and 
therefore all whom it restores to the condition of 
saints, must retain this condition. 

The fundamental doctrines of Calvinism, then, are 
total depravity, and election; and if these are found to 
be contained in the articles and homilies, I suppose it 
may be rightly inferred, that such are the doctrines of 
the church. When an established church is built on 
a code of laws, articles, and formularies, which have 
been fixed by convocations and conventions, where 
shall we look for the tenets of this church but 
in this code itself? Interpretations and commentaries, 
to make articles understood, are very suspicious. 
Erudite researches, to find out what the frontiers of 
the articles meant, are useless. It is to be presumed 
they meant what they have expressed. If the church 
fancy it has grown wiser and improved since the 
days of Cranmer, and find doctrines contained in 
some of the articles, which it cannot receive, let it re- 
ject such articles, and not resort to conceits and para- 
phrases to explain away the meaning, which they irre^ 
sistably force upon every unbiassed mind. 

Let us see what the church teaches in regard tQ 
these two principal points of Calvinism. A single 
reading of the articles, I am persuaded, would con- 
vince most persons, that these doctrines are in sub- 
stance taught there, with as much emphasis as in any 
calvinistic formulary. I will bring forward a few 



lis 

passages, which, if they do not imply the total de- 
pravity of our nature, and the imputation of Adam's 
sin to his posterity, it will be no easy task to tell 
what they do imply. The ninth article has generally 
been thought to be of itself decisive on this point, 
although you are resolved it shall countenance no 
such doctrine. The following are the words of the 
article, as it stands in the Book of Common Prayer. 

"Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam 
(as the Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the fault and 
corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally 
is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man 
is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of 
his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lust- 
eth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in 
every person born into this world it deserveth God's 
wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature 
doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated." 

Where will you find the calvinistic tenet of original 
sin, and the total depravity of human nature, ex- 
pressed in stronger terms than these? The "vain 
talk" of Pelagius consisted in maintaining, that 
the sin of Adam was not imputed to his posterity, 
and that we are born as free from guilt, as if Adam 
had never transgressed. This was called a heresy, 
and to guard against it, the article takes care to tell 
lis in terms, which it is presumed no one can mistake, 
what the church understands by original sin. And as 
it respects depravity, what is "that corruption of the 
nature of every man, which deserveth God's wrath 
and damnation," if it be not what the Calvinists call 
total depravity? It will be difficult to form a defini- 



113 



iion of such a quality, if it be not contained in these 
words.* 

Compare this article with the following extracts. 
"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, 
that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own 
natural strength and good works to faith and calling 
upon God." Art. x. "Works done before the grace 
of Christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are not 
pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith 
in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to re- 
ceive grace; — yea rather, for that they are not done as 
God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we 
doubt not but they have the nature of sin." Art. xiii. 
"Ml men are conceived and born in sin, and they who 
are in the flesh connot please God."\ 

It is scarcely necessary to remark on these pas- 
sages. Their confirmation of what has been above 
shown to be the sense of the ninth article must be ob- 
vious. What else but a corrupt and depraved state 

*The bishop of Lincoln has reminded us, that the article does 
not say we are totally depraved, but only "very far gone from 
original righteousness." This is a quibble, which few, probably, 
would have discovered without aid. Whoever resorts to it, needs 
give no other indication of the impressions he receives from the 
general import of the article. That a bishop, and a scholar, should 
decend to this kind of trifling, we cannot but wonder; especially 
when it is considered that the articles were first drawn up in 
Latin, and that this is a very faulty translation. In the Latin it 
stands, "Ab originali justitia quam longissime distet;" Gone as 
far as possible from original righteousness. Bishop of Lincoln's 
Refutation of Calvinism, chap. i. p. 50. Scott's reply to Tom- 
line, vol. i. p. 80. The Fathers, Beformers, &c. in Harmony with 
Calvin, p. 43. 

t "Baptism of such as are of riper years." 



414 



of our nature, in as strong a sense as Calvin himself 
could have expressed it, can render us incapable of 
having faith, and calling upon God? He must be a 
depraved being, indeed, who is not fit to call on his 
Maker. Can the good works of any being, who is 
not totally depraved, be "of the nature of sin, and not 
pleasant to God?" Thus we see this doctrine is 
most unequivocally taught in several articles of tha 
church. 

Let us turn to the Homilies. In the thirty-fifth 
article, these books are enjoined "to be read in 
churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly," 
as containing "a godly and wholesome doctrine, and 
necessary for these times." The Homilies, there- 
fore, I suppose to be of equal authority with the ar- 
ticles, or any part of the church service.* In the 
second Homily concerning the death and passion of 
our Saviour, it is stated, "When our great grand 
father Adam had broken God's commandment, in 
eating the apple forbidden him in Paradise, at the 
motion and suggestion of his wife, he purchased 

* By an order of 1 the convention in 1801, the reading of the Ho- 
milies in churches was suspended, till a revision of them could be 
^conveniently made for the clearing of them, as well from obsolete 
words and phrases, as from local references." Nothing more 
seems to have been done till 1814, when the convention "proposed 
to the house of clerical and lay deputies, to make a standing order to 
every bishop, and to the ecclesiastical authority in every state des- 
titute of a bishop, to be furnished, as soon as may be, with a copy 
or copies, of said work, and to require it to be studied by all can- 
didates for the ministry within their respective bounds." 

In consequence of this resolve of the convention, an edition of 
the Homilies was speedily published in New-York, but without aU 
teration. It was printed literally from the last Oxford edition. 



115 



thereby not only to himself, but also to his posterity 
forever, the just wrath and indignation of God, who, 
according to his former sentence pronounced at the 
giving of the commandment, condemned both him and 
all his to everlasting death, both of body and soul; — 
lie was cast out of Paradise, he was no longer a citi- 
zen of heaven, but a firebrand of hell, and a bond 
slave of the devil." "Man of his own nature is fleshly 
and carnal, corrupt and naught, sinful and disobedi- 
ent to God, without any spark of goodness in him, 
without any virtuous or godly motion, only given to 
evil thoughts and wicked deeds."* 

Again, in the second part of the Homily of the 
Misery of Man, we read; "Of ourselves we be crab- 
trees, that can bring forth no apples. We be of our- 
selves of such earth as can bring forth but weeds, 
nettles, briers, cockle, and darnel.— Hitherto have 
we heard what we are of ourselves; very sinful, 
wretched, and damnable; we are not able to think a 
good thought or work a good deed, so that we can 
find in ourselves no hope of salvation, but rather 
whatsoever maketh unto our destruction." 

And again, after describing the deplorable condi- 
tion into which Adam was brought by the fall, the 
Homily continues; "This so great and miserable a 
plague, if it had only rested on Adam, who first of- 
fended, it had been so much the easier, and might 
the better have been borne. But it fell not only on 
him, but also on his posterity and children for ever, 
so that the whole brood of Adanrs flesh should sus- 
tain the self same fall and punishment, which their 



** Homily for Whitsunday, Part. 1. 



116 



forefather by his offence most justly had deserved. — As 
in Adam all men universally sinned, so in Adam all 
men universally received the reward of sin; that is to 
say, became mortal, and subject unto death, having 
in themselves nothing but everlasting damnation both 
of body and soul; — they were nothing else but chil- 
dren of perdition, partakers of hell fire."* 

Quotations to the same effect from the Homilies 
might be multiplied. These are enough. Where 
is this fundamental doctrine of Calvinism expressed 
in stronger language? You will search the Institutes 
in vain to find a parallel. What is the total depra- 
vity of man, if it be not to be "of his own nature 
without any spark of goodness in him, without any 
virtuous or godly motion? " Are we not totally de- 
praved in the most absolute sense, if "we are of our- 
selves very sinful, wretched and damnable, — not able 
either to think a good thought, or work a good deed?'* 
How will you express the imputation of Adam's guilt 
to his posterity, if it be not contained in the following 
words; namely, "he purchased not only to himself, but 
also to his posterity for ever, the just wrath and indig- 
nation of God?" And again; "this great and misera- 
ble plague fell not only on him, but also on his pos- 
terity and children for everP 

When you consider these express declarations of 
the Articles and Homilies, how can you imply, as 
you have done, that "the imputation of the guilt of 
Adam's sin to his posterity, as the cause of their con- 
demnation to eternal punishment," (p. 27.) is not a 
doctrine of the church? On what grounds could Dr. 



* Homily of the Nativity. 



117 

How, who has attempted so elaborately to vindicate 
the church against the charge of Calvinism, make the 
very broad assertion, that "there is not a trace of this 
doctrine in our Articles, our Homilies, or our Pray- 
ers?"* Such assertions will be received by those 
only, who never read the Articles, or look into the Ho- 
milies. It is a little remarkable, that any writer should 
venture to hazard them; for if the Homilies should ever 
be read constantly in churches, as the Articles enjoin, 
the people must soon discover them to be groundless* 
In a word, if the total depravity of man, and the im- 
putation of Adam's sin to his posterity, be not doctrines 
of the church, it will be impossible to ascertain from 
its Articles, Service, and Homilies, any one doctrine, 
which can be called such. 

On the other fundamental doctrine of Calvinism, 
the seventeenth article of the church is full and deci- 
sive. It is comprised in the following words. 

"Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose 
of God, whereby, (before the foundations of the world, 
were laid) he hath constantly decreed, by his counsel, 
secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation, 
those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, 
and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, 
as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they, which 
be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be cal- 
led according to God's purpose, by his spirit working 
in due season; they through grace obey the calling; 
they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by 
adoption; they be made like the image of his only be- 
gotten son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in 



* How's Vindication, p. 25.9. 
40 



118 



good works; and at length by God's mercy they at- 
tain to everlasting felicity. 

"As the godly consideration of predestination, and 
our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and 
unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as 
feel in themselves the working of the spirit of Christ, 
mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly 
members, and drawing up their mind to high and 
heavenly things, as well, because it doth greatly es- 
tablish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to 
be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fer- 
vently kindle their love towards God; so, for curious 
and carnal persons, lacking the spirit of Christ, to 
have continually before their eyes the sentence of 
God's predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, 
whereby the devil doth thrust them either into des- 
peration, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, 
no less perilous than desperation. 

"Furthermore, we must receive God's promises 
in such wise, as they be generally set forth in holy 
scripture; and in our doings, that will of God is to be 
followed, which we have expressly declared unto us 
in the word of God." 

He must look with very partial eyes, who will dis- 
cover this article to be less explicit, less unequivocal, 
or less positive, on the doctrine of election, than the 
language, which is usually found in calvinistic books. 
Let this article be read by any one, who has no 
knowledge of the explanations, which it has received 
from anti-calvinistic interpreters, and do you believe 
he will suspect for a moment, that it is not intended 
to teach the doctrine of absolute decrees? 



119 



Compare the first part of the article with the follow- 
ing words taken from the calvinistic Confession of 
Faith. "Those of mankind that are predestinated 
unto life, (rod, before the foundation of the world was 
laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, 
and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, 
hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory."* Do 
you not perceive a striking similarity here, not only in 
ideas, but in words? The Calvinists have enlarged 
more fully, and manfully carried out and defended 
this doctrine, but the root, the substance of the whole, 
is as clearly contained in the seventeenth article, as it 
is in the Institutes, the Calvinistic Confession, or the 
decisions of the Synod at Dort. 

You have remarked, with others of the Arminian 
school, that nothing is said in the article about repro- 
bation. Why should any thing be said? This makes 
no part of the doctrine itself; but is only a conse- 
quence. If it has been decreed by "the everlasting 
purpose of God," that a certain number shall be de- 
livered "from curse and damnation," nothing is more 
evident, than that the remainder must be reprobate. 

You have said, also, that the article "has reference 
to the general election of the church, as the recipient 
of the covenant of grace, and not an allusion to the 
future state of individuals." p. 27 . From what part 
of the article can such an inference be drawn? This 
may be the doctrine of scripture, but what do you find 
in the article, which will give any sanction to such a 
construction? All, who are elected, are to be "deliver- 
ed from curse and damnation;" and is it your opinion* 



* Confession of Faith, chap, iii. § 5. 

» 



120 

that every individual of the church is to be of this 
description? And what is this "curse and damna- 
tion/' but the future punishment of individuals? 
"W ould these terms be used in reference to a whole 
church receiving the covenant of grace? Can they be 
used in reference to any thing, but the future state of 
individuals? '[The article goes upon the supposition, 
that all by Mature are under a curse, and declares, 
that a certain ^umber, by the decrees of (rod, are de- 
livered from this curse; and it is difficult to tell what 
calvinistic election is, more or less than this. It is an 
absolute and arbitrary election; foritis expressly stated 
to be according to "the everlasting purpose of God J 9 
Nor is any thing said of its being made in conse- 
quence of a foreknowledge of conduct. 

No one can deny, that bishop Bnrnet has examined 
this article with the greatest fairness and candour. 
He has pointed out with precision and acuteness the 
different sentiments, which have been held on the doc- 
trine of election, and although his own opinions were 
not calvinistic, he says of this article, "It is not to 
be deuied but that the doctrine seems to be framed ac- 
cording to St. Austin's doctrine. It supposes men to 
be under a curse and damnation, antecedently to pre- 
destination." After exhibiting some of the difficul- 
ties with which they had to contend, who would ex- 
plain the article in a different way, he goes on to re- 
mark; "on the other hand, the Calvinists have less 
occasion to scruple, since the article does seem more 
plainly to favour them."* This is the testimony of a 
man, who has written more judiciously, and with more 



* Burnet's Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. xvii. 



121 

ialent probably on the articles, than any other, and 
whose opinion in regard to the doctrine of election, 
was actually contrary to the decision of his candour 
and judgment on the doctrine of the article. 

In the Collect for All-Saints' Day it is said; "who 
has knit together thine elect in one communion and 
fellowship, in the mystical body of thy son." The 
following passages are contained in the English 
Prayer Book, but left out of the American, for reasons 
best known to the members of the convention, as they 
contain nothing more on the doctrine of election, than 
what is clearly expressed in the seventeenth article. 
Thus, in the Catechism, the child is made to say, "I 
believe in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me, 
and all the elect people of God." In the burial ser- 
vice is the following petition, — "beseeching thee, 
shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and 
to hasten thy kingdom." If I mistake not, these 
phrases are very similar to those often used by Cal- 
vinists, and why should we not take them in the same 
sense. 

In the Homily on Alms Deeds we are told of 
those, "whom God hath appointed to everlasting sal- 
vation;" who are "the undoubted children of God, 
appointed to everlasting life;" and who "are sons of 
God, and elect of him unto salvation."* 

Such are the evidences drawn from the Articles, 
Homilies and Service of fhe Church. If any one can 
read these extracts and not be convinced, that the fun- 
damental doctrines of Calvinism, namely, total depra- 
vity, with the imputation of Adam's sin, and election. 



* Homilies, New-York, 1815, p. 329, 



^ire clearly taught in them, it may be doubted whether 
it were possible for language to be so constructed as to 
produce conviction. Every man does not examine with 
so much freedom from prejudice, perhaps, as bishop 
Burnet, nor with so determined a resolution to make his 
own opinions consistent with the scriptures, and to let 
the articles speak in their natural language, without 
endeavouring to press them into his service by force. 
If a man has settled it in his mind that au article, 
partly ambiguous, and partly metaphysical, shall have 
a particular meaning, it is no difficult task to give it a 
plausible turn into any direction he pleases. When 
he deserts the plain construction, and goes into ex- 
planations merely possible, he at once leaves the sus- 
picion, that he is not so much concerned to ascertain 
the meaning of the article, as to determine in what 
way it can be best explained to support the opinions, 
which he has already formed from other sources. 

You suppose, that the closing part of the article 
does away the possibility of proving from the first 
part the calvinistic doctrine of election. It is there 
said, "that will of God is to be followed, which we 
have expressly declared to us in the word of God." 
This you think is not consistent with Calvinism; and 
therefore, no part of the article can be considered 
calvinistic. But let me ask, if every sincere Calvin- 
ist does not believe his sentiments to be according to 
what is "expressly declared in the word of God?" 
The Calvinist, as well as the Arminian, will acknow- 
ledge the truth and force of this clause of the article, 
whatever construction he may give to any other part. 
The person who receives the article in its literal 
sense, and sees in it the doctrine of election in its 



128 



most decided form, will receive the last clause as one 
of the first rules, which is to guide him in the search 
of religious truth. 

You also intimate, that the doctrine of election can- 
not belong to the church, because it is taught in the 
articles, that "the offering of Christ was made for all 
the sins of the whole world." Would you infer from 
this, that Calvinists do not hold to the same be- 
lief? Do not all christians of every denomination 
believe, that "the free gift came upon all men unto 
justification of life." Rom. v. 1. — that Christ "is the 
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for 
the sins of the whole world." 1 John, ii. 2. — and that 
God "would have all men to be saved?" 1 Tim. ii. 4. 
Calvinists will not reject these texts of scripture. 
They will not deny, that the death of Christ was suf- 
ficient to take away the sins of the whole world. It 
is not the sufficiency of the sacrifice for the salvation 
of all, which they deny, but the fact, that all will re- 
ceive the benefit of this sacrifice. All you have said, 
therefore, respecting the doctrines of the Articles 
and Church Service, is perfectly consistent with 
Calvinism. The church believes, as you say, that 
Christ by his death "made a satisfaction for the 
sins of the whole world;" Calvinists believe the same. 

I do not pretend to reconcile inconsistencies in the 
articles. Upon the calvinistic scheme they are suffi- 
ciently consistent. If you make some of them direct- 
ly opposed to Calvinism, while others maintain the 
great doctrines of this faith, you put them at an irre- 
concileable variance. This perplexity will be avoided 
by taking them in their natural sense. 



124 



There needs no stronger argument, in favour of the 
articles and formularies of the church being entirely 
calvinistic, than the fact that every Calvinist will 
receive all of them, which have any bearing on doc- 
trines, without limitation or paraphrase. 

Bishop White and Dr. How have been at much 
pains to show, that the original reformers were not 
Calvinists. But are not their labours somewhat gra- 
tuitous? It is not the opinions of Cranmer, or Ridley, 
or Hooper, or Latimer, which the humble christian 
now searches after, when he consults his Prayer 
Book, but the sentiments conveyed in the articles 
themselves. He is not called on by the church to be- 
lieve what Cranmer believed, but what the articles 
contain. It will only perplex and confound him to 
accumulate a mass of evidence to prove, that such 
were the opinions of one reformer, and such of anoth- 
er. If the Prayer Book will not explain itself, it 
were better to lay it aside, and adopt one that will, 
than to go back three hundred years to the troublous 
times of the reformation, to know what religious 
tenets were then agitating the world. 

But after the elaborate efforts of these writers to 
prove, that the sentiments of the reformers were not 
calvinistic, few, probably, who are not influenced by 
some previous bias, will be conducted from their 
premises to the same conclusions. The subject is ex- 
amined by bishop White in particular, with no com- 
won degree of ability, and with that temper of chris- 
tian moderation and candour, which is consistent with 
his character To my mind, however, his success 
has not been equal to the talents and learning he has 
displayed. The following passage^ which he quotes 



125 



from Mosheim, and endeavours to answer, is strongly 
against him. "When it was proposed under the reign 
of Edward VI. to give a fixed and stable form to the 
doctrine and discipline of the church, Geneva was 
acknowledged as a sister church; and the theological 
system there established by Calvin was adopted, and 
rendered the public rule of faith in England."* The 
bishop replies to this, by questioning the authority of 
Moshiem, and says he probably quoted from Neal, 
who is not always to be trusted. But it is hardly fair 
to elude, in this way, the testimony of one of the 
most impartial and candid writers, who has ever writ- 
ten on ecclesiastical history. Whether he took it from 
Neal or not, we can scarcely be allowed to suppose, 
that a writer so remarkable for accuracy should speak 
in so unqualified a manner of the theological tenets 
of a national church, without being fully convinced, 
that he was speaking from the best authority; espe- 
cially when it is considered, that it was a case in 
which no prejudice or feelings of his own could in- 
terfere. 

Bishop Burnet, in his exposition of the seventeenth 
article, seems to countenance the representation of 
Mosheim. "In England," says he, "the first reform- 
ers were generally in the Sublapsarian hypothesis." 
This hypothesis embraced all the essential doctrines 
of Calvinism; and although the name of Sublapsa- 
rians was not given to any sect of christians till after 
the reformation, yet if the bishop means any thing, he 
must be supposed to mean, that the leading tenets of 

* Bishop White's Comparative Views of the Controversy be- 
tween Calvinists and Arminians, Vol. ii. p. 4, 

17 



126 



the reformers were similar to those of the Sublapsa- 
rians; that is, they were calvinistic. 

Furthermore, it is well known, that archbishop 
Cranmer, the chief of the English reformers, and who 
drew up the articles of the Church of England, wrote 
to Calvin requesting his aid, and that a correspon- 
dence was kept up between them. It is well known 
also, that Calvin wrote to king Edward VI. while 
Cranmer was engaged in forming the articles. Is it 
probable, that such an intimacy would have existed 
at this time, and that a familiar correspondence on 
these subjects would have been carried on, unless the 
religious sentiments of the parties were similar? 

Another argument to prove the sentiments of the lead- 
ing reformers to have been calvinistic, is drawn from 
their own writings, and from writings which they ap- 
proved. King Edward's Catechism, or as it was af- 
terwards called, Dr. NowePs Catechism, was approv- 
ed by Cranmer and Ridley, if not in part made by 
them.* This catechism contains the following words, 
"As many as were in this faith steadfast, were fore- 
chosen, predestinated, and appointed to everlasting 
life before the world was made."f 

In Latimer's Sermons it is said, "We must needs 
grant ourselves to be in like displeasure unto God, as 
our father Adam was. By reason hereof we be of 

* This Catechism "was subscribed by those martyrs for the pro- 
testant faith, archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, and ordered 
to be taught in schools throughout the kingdom." — Sir Richard 
Hill's Apology, page 25. 

t See a work entitled, "Calvin in Hnrrmony with the Fathers and 
Reformers; by a Layman." p. 136. 



127 



ourselves, the very children of the indignation andven- 
geance of God."* These sentiments are expressed 
still more decidedly in the marginal notes of the 
"Great Bible," published under the direction of Gran- 
nie*, in 1549. "Our election is by grace, and not by 
works. Few are elect or chosen. We are elect of 
God the father, through his good will before the con- 
struction of the world, that by the grace and merit of 
Christ, we should have health, serving all men by 
charity. The elect cannot be accused, forasmuch 
as God justifieth them. The predestinate are saints 
or holy people, made like to the image of the Son of 
God, and. called, justified and glorified by hini."f In 
the "Bishop^s Bible/' published in 15(58, the same 
doctrine is found. In a note on Horn. xi. 35, it is 
said, "By this the apostle declareth, that God by his 
free will and election, doth give salvation unto men, 
without any deserts of their oivn."% In the "Quarto 
Bible," printed 15/6, is contained the following note 
on Matth. xxv. 34. "Hereby God declareth the cer- 
tainty of our predestination; whereby we are saved, 
because we were chosen in Christ before the founda- 
tion of the world;" and on Mark xiii. 23. "The elect 
may waiver and be troubled, but they cannot utterly 
be deceived or overcome." § 

In the work here referred to, many other extracts 
of a similar nature may be seen. The Bibles above- 
mentioned were published under the express direction 
of the first reformers, and the clergy of those times. 
After reading these extracts, it is no longer possible to 

■ Calvin in Harmony with the Fathers, &lc. p. 139. 
1 Tb. 145. ip. 146. §p.l46. 



128 

doubt of the tenets of the reformers, who framed and 
adopted the Articles of the Church. We can have 
no better authority, than their own writings, or books 
which came out under their sanction. Dr. Heylin, 
who was an anti-calvinist, and whom the bishop of 
Lincoln quotes with approbation, gives his testimony, 
in his Life of Laud, to the prevalence of the calvinistic 
tenets in the time of queen Elizabeth. "Predestina- 
tion," says he, "and the points depending thereupon, 
were received as the established doctrines of the 
Church of England." And speaking of the seven- 
teenth article, he says, that the predestination there 
defined, "doth presuppose a curse and state of dam* 
nation, in w 7 hich all mankind was presented to the 
sight of God; — that it was of some special ones alone, 
elect, called forth, and reserved in Christ, and not 
generally extended to all mankind."* 

The same sentiments prevailed at the universities 
in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. which ap- 
pears by the Theses, that were maintained at them by 
candidates for the degree of doctor in divinity. The 
following are selected from those, which were main- 
tained at Oxford. 

"The salvation of the elect is perfect, so that they 
cannot perish." 

"The whole salvation of the elect is purely gra- 
tuitous " 

"Whether election be from works foreseen? De- 
nied."! 

*See Calvin in Harmony with the Fathers, &c. p. 113, 164. 

t Electorum certa est solus, perire non possint. 

Tota salus electorum est mere grcttuita. 

Jin electio sit ex prcevisis operibus? JSTeg. — lb. p. 166, 16£, 



129 



In the time of queen Mary, certain persons, who 
were imprisoned on account of their religious senti- 
ments, were accused of denying the doctrines of pre- 
destination and original sin. Bradford, prebendary 
of St. Paul's, visited them in prison, and endeavoured 
to convince them of their errors, but without avail. 
Being "apprehensive that they would do a great deal 
of mischief in the church, he, in concert with bishop 
Ferrar, Taylor, and Philpot, wrote to Cranmer, Rid- 
ley, and Latimer, at Oxford, to take some cognizance 
of the matter, and consult together about remedying 
it. Upon this occasion Ridley wrote back a letter 
Of God's Election and Predestination, and Bradford 
wrote another upon the same subject."* Is it probable 
that Bradford would have written such a letter to 
Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, had it not been well 
known, that they believed in predestination? 

The Lambeth Articles are usually quoted as another 
proof of the Calvinism of the English church, and not 
without reason. Some difficulties, it seems, had 
arisen among the officers and professors of the Uni- 
versity at Cambridge on certain points of doctrine, 
which were referred to the archbishop of Canter- 
bury. He, in conjunction with the archbishop of 
York, the bishop of London, the dean of Ely, and 
other dignitaries of the church, assembled at the ar 
chlepiscopal palace in Lambeth, November tenth, 
1595, drew up a number of articles, which were sent 
to the University, as "the avowed sense of the church 
of England." Among these articles were the fol 
lowing. 



tNeal's History of the Puritans, Lond. 1732, Vol. 1. p. 103* 



130 



^Grod from eternity bath predestinated certaiu men 
unto life; certain men he hath reprobated." 

"There is predetermined a certain number of the 
predestinate, which can neither be augmented, nor di- 
minished." 

"Those who are not predestinated unto salvation 
shall necessarily be damned for their sins." 

Heylin says, the queen was much offended at these 
articles, and caused the archbishop to recal them. 
But from his own account it is obvious, that her of- 
fence arose not so much from her disapprobation of 
the articles, as from the presumption of the archbi- 
shop in framing them without consulting her, and in 
promulgating them without her authority.* Nor was 
her being offended any evidence, that they did not 
express the prevailing sentiments of the church. 
Where shall we look for the sense of the church, if 
not to the opinions of its highest dignitaries?! 

* This offence of queen Elizabeth, was consistent with her 
imperious temper in regard to all theological concerns The 
ecclesiastical court, which she established under the charge of 
this same archbishop of Canterbury, was little inferior, in its seve- 
rities and injustice, to the inquisition itself. And after the Com- 
mons, in a petition to the prelates, had made some complaints of 
their grievances, the queen reproved them severely for their pre- 
sumption. In a speech from the throne, "she told them, that 
whoever found fault with the church threw a slander upon her, 
since she was appointed by God supreme ruler over it; and no 
heresies or schisms could prevail in the kingdom but by her per- 
mission and negligence." — Hume's History of England, vol. v. p. 
269. See also Camden's History of the Reign of Queen Eliza- 
beth, Lond. 1675, p. 454. 

t See the Lambeth Articles at large in the bishop of Lincoln's 
Refutation of Calvinism, p. 560, quoted from Heylin's Quinquar- 
ticular History. Also, Hill's Apology for the Doctrines of the 



131 



Neal says, in alluding to the controversy, which 
commenced in the University of Cambridge, "All the 
Protestant divines in the church, whether puritans, 
or others, seemed of one mind hitherto about the doc- 
trines of faith, but now there arose a party, which 
were first for softening, and then for overthrowing the 
received opinions about predestination, perseverance, 
free will, effectual grace, and the extent of our Sa- 
viour's redemption. The articles of the church of 
England, were thought by all men hitherto, to favour 
the explication of Calvin; but these divines would 
make them stand neuter, and leave a latitude for the 
subscriber to take either side of the question." And 
again; "The divines of Oxford, and indeed all the 
first reformers, were in the same sentiments with 
those of Cambridge about the disputed points; Cal- 
vin's Institutions being read publicly in the schools 
by appointment of the convocation 

Another evidence of the Calvinism of the English 
church at an early period, is the part it took in the 
famous Synod of Dort. The express purpose of this 
Synod was to establish, by the greatest weight of au- 
thority, the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, and to adopt 

church of England, in letters to the Rev. Charles Daubney, 
p. 88. 

In the letter written on this occasion by the vice-chancellor, 
and heads of the University, to the chancellor, they say, "we are 
right sorry to have such occasion to trouble your lordship, as the 
peace of this University being; brought into peril by the late re- 
viving of new opinions" &c. — Strype's Annals, vol. iv. fol. p. 229. 
These new opinions were the anti-calf imstic tenets, which were 
flien beginning to spring up in the University. 

* History of the Puritans, vol. i. p, 579, 584, 



132 



effectual measures for suppressing the rising heresy, 
of Arminius, which was found to be increasing to an 
alarming degree. The Synod was composed of nu- 
merous delegates from different parts of Holland, 
Germany, from Geneva, and Great Britain. The 
live points of Calvinism were each separately consi* 
dered, and judged without a dissenting voice "to be 
agreeable to God's word/'* They next proceeded re- 
ligiously to excommunicate all remonstrants, or fol- 
lowers of Arminius, as persons, who "must of neces- 
sity be punished with a very severe censure, such as 
hath in all ages been infflicted by the church in such 
cases. The last act of their synodical delibera- 
tions, was to excommunicate Conrad Vorstius, a pro- 
fessor of Leyden, and teacher of Arminianism; and to 
procure a decree of banishment against him from the 
states-general of Holland.^ 

Is it not absurd to suppose, that this delegation 
would have been sent from the English church, if the 
church itself were not calvinistic? The object of the 

* In the Title to these articles, they are said to contain a doc- 
trine, "quam synod us Dordrechtana verba Dei consentaneam, at- 
que in Ecclesiis Reformats hactenus receptam esse, judical* 
Vide Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus Reformandse Ecclesiae- 
editarum,et cset. Oxon. 1804, p. 369. 

t See "The Judgment of the Synod holden at Dort, concern- 
ing the Five Articles; as also their sentence touching Conradus 
Vorstius," Lond. 1 619, p. 90. 

X Among other heinous offences charged against Vorstius, he was 
accused of "making bold" with such doctrines "as concerne the 
trinitie of persons in the godhead — the hypostaticall union — and 
partly avoching expressly many things contrary to the trueth of 
God — either wholly consorting, or very neere bordering upon the 
blasphemies of the balefull heretique Socinus." p. 102, 103, 



133 



synod was well known beforehand; and none of the 
English delegates dissented from a single resolution 
that passed on points of doctrine. Nor were they 
ever afterwards charged with not having properly re- 
presented their church in this respect. As they were 
the only delegates present from an ejnscopal church* 
some complaint was made after their return, because 
they did not protest against certain proceedings relat- 
ing to church government; but they vindicated them- 
selves on the plea, that they took no share in these 
proceedings, and felt it their duty to act only on sub- 
jects of doctrine. They published^ what they called 
a " Joint Attestation," in which they explained their 
motives, and vindicated themselves in a very honour- 
able and dignified manner. Their closing words are 
worthy of notice in connexion with the present subject. 

"As in that synod our special care and perpetual 
endeavour was to guide our judgments by that sound 
doctrine, which we had received from the Church of 
England, so we were far, and ever shall be from 
usurping our mother's authority, or attempting to ob- 
trude upon her children any of our synodical conclu- 
sions, as obligatory to them; yet remaining ourselves 
nevertheless resolved, that whatsoever was assented 
uuto, or subscribed by us concerning the five articles, 
is not only warrantable by the holy scriptures, but 
also conformable to the received doctrine of our said 
venerable mother."* 

This was signed by the bishop of Landaff, and the 
four other delegates, who were sent with him to the 

* "A Joint Attestation, avowing that the Discipline of the Church 
of England was not impeached at the Synod of Deri." Lend. 1626. 
p. 25, 26. 

18 



134 



Synod of Dort. We thus have not only the presump- 
tive evidence, that the church was calvinistic, from 
the circumstance of its sending delegates to this synod, 
but the positive testimony of the delegates them- 
selves, that the doctrines of Calvinism, which they had 
given their voice to establish in the synod, were such 
as they had "received from the Church of England" 
It is a question, which may with propriety be 
asked, why predestination was introduced in any 
shape into the Articles of the Church, if the framers 
of these articles did not believe in this doctrine? It is 
found neither in the Augsburg nor the Saxon confes- 
sion, both of which are said to have been principally 
from the pen of Melancthon.* It is evident from these 
confessions, that the doctrine of election formed no 
part of Melancthon's creed. Now the Arminian inter- 
preters would have us understand, that Cranmer and 
his associates were much more intimate with Melanc- 
thon than with Calvin, and that the Augsburg Confes- 
sion was their principal model. This Confession is 
silent on the subject of predestination, although it is 
full on all the other important points of Calvinism. 
It maintains the doctrines of original sin, the depravi- 
ty of human nature, the entire inability of man, justi- 
fication by faith, salvation by grace, and the vicarious 

* Luther could not appear at the Diet of Augsburg, because he 
had been proscribed by the edict of Worms; yet he remained du- 
ring the session of the Diet, in the neighbouring town of Coburg 
where "his advice was constantly sought." Hence the Augsbnrg 
Confession contained the sentiments of Luther, as well as Melanc- 
thon, and the German princes by whom it was subscribed. €oxV 
Life of Melancthon, p. 304. 



135 



sacrifice of Christ.* If this confession were the mo- 
del of the English reformers, why should they insert 
an article expressly on election, unless they thought 
this doctrine an essential addition? The kind of pre- 
destination which you describe as being intended by 
the seventh article of the church, was probably never 
thought of as an article of faith. You say "it has re- 
ference to the general election of the church, as the 
recipient of the covenant of grace, and not an allusion 
to the future state of individuals. "f Something like 
this, perhaps, was the opinion of Melancthon respect- 
ing the scripture account of election, aud for this rea- 
son he passed it over, as having no place in a confes- 
sion of faith. But do you believe a single instauce can 
be found, iu any formularies of faith, in which the 
doctrine of election is introduced without alluding 
to the "future state of individuals?" That the sev- 
enreenth article should have been added at all, is 
only to be explained on the supposition, that it was to 
be understood in the usual acceptation of this doctrine, 
as it was already expressed iu the well known con- 
fessions of Basil, Bohemia, and others. 

I have been led into this historical" detail with a 
view to trace the analogy between the seutiraents of 
the English reformers, and the plain sense of the ar- 
ticles of the church. The Anninian interpreters, 
aware that the articles as they stand are cordially re- 
ceived by the Calvinists, and considered as strong 
supports of their doctrines, are fond of going back to 
the reformers, and modifying the articles by what they 

v Sylloge Confessionum, p. 127. 
t Sermon, &c. p. 27. 



136 



conceive to have been the opinions of their original fra- 
mers. They have never informed us, however, what 
reasons they have for supposing that these persons 
took pains to write ambiguous articles, or to clothe 
them in a language expressing opinions, which they 
did not entertain.* The view, which has just been 
taken, must certainly free them from any such charge, 
and leave them at least the merit of consistency, fair- 
ness and honesty, of which they would be entitled to 
a very small share, if they did not write as they be- 
lieved, and if their opinions were not calvinistic. We 
have not only their own declarations, but the ample 
testimony of cotemporary, and numerous succeeding 
writers. 

I cannot close these remarks on the articles with- 
out noticing one, which is so uncharitable and un- 
scriptural, that it is truly astonishing it should ever 
have been admitted into a system of christian faith. 
I refer to the eighteenth article, in which it is said, 
"They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, 
that every man shall be saved by the law or sect 
which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame 

* Gilpin thinks it probable, that Cranmer in constructing the 
articles was "intentionally ambiguous," and that "he thought it 
prudent on this occasion to use such writ timed ambiguity, as 
might give as little offence as possible!" Gilpin's Life of Cranmer, 
p. 155, 156, This was a singular motive, indeed, to guide a man 
in forming articles of religion, which were to be the rule of a na- 
tion's faith, and to which the whole body of the clergy were requir- 
ed by law to subscribe. Would it not have redounded quite as 
much to the edification of the church, to let the people follow the 
perspicuous rules of scripture, as to confound them in the dark 
mazes and ambiguous phraseology of mystical divinity? 



137 



bis life according to that law, and the light of na- 
ture." Is it, then, the doctrine of the church, that all 
persons who lived before Christ, and all who shall 
live after him, without receiving a revelation, and 
hearing the glad tidings of his religion, are to have 
no part in the promise of salvation? Is this just? If 
they act according to the law and light they possess, 
what more will a righteous and merciful God re- 
quire? Had the framers of this article forgotten the 
parable of the talents, aud the express language 
of the apostle? To the Romans St. Paul writes, 
"When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do 
by nature the things contained in the law, these, 
having not the law, are a law unto themselves. 9 ' ii. 
14. This is the law of conscience and reason, and 
when the man, who has no other law, acts in strict 
conformity to this, what authority have we to say, 
that he will not secure the favour of God? The 
christian will be judged by the law of the gospel; the 
heathen, who never heard of the gospel, by the law 
of conscience. "God is no respecter of persons, but 
in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh 
righteousness is accepted with him." Acts x. 35. 
The article not only implies, that no individuals of 
any nation, which has not been visited with the light of 
gospel truth, can be saved; but declares that they are 
to be had accursed, who even presume to say, that 
they can be saved. It is much to be lamented, that 
such an article as this should be admitted into any 
formulary of christian faith. Nothing can be more 
contrary to the spirit and temper every where mani- 
fested by the blessed Jesus, and every where incul- 
cated in the writings of the apostles. 



188 



After the examination, which has been made, how 
can the conclusion be resisted, that the sentiments ad- 
vanced in your discourse, respecting the doctrinal char- 
acter of the articles of the English church, are strik- 
ingly inconsistent with the church service, the ho- 
milies, and the plain, natural sense of the articles 
themselves? If the tenets of the reformers were not 
calvinistic, it will be difficult to prove any thing from 
written testimony; and it is not manifesting much re- 
spect for their memory, to charge them with writing 
articles, and teaching doctrines, which did not accord 
with their sentiments. 

It has not been my aim, to attempt a confutation 
of your religious opinions. In many of these I agree 
With you. It is your manner of adapting the articles 
of the church to your opinions with which I am at 
variance. The system, which you pursue, I am per- 
suaded is calculated to deceive the understanding, to 
obscure the truth, and to divert the mind from the 
only proper channel of religious knowledge. If re- 
port is to be credited, a very large portion of the Ame- 
rican episcopal church is Arminian. All the mem- 
bers of the church, who range themselves in this 
class, pursue the same course of interpretation as 
yourself. I have had occasion to examine the con- 
struction, which several writers on this side of the 
question have put on the articles. The conviction 
has been perpetually forced on my mind, that the 
writer was not so much inquiring into the actual 
meaning and force of the articles, as devising inge- 
nious ways of turning ambiguous phrases to his own 
account, and in making all general expressions have 
a particular bearing on the doctrine he is engaged to 



139 



support. One cannot but feel, that the writer, instead 
of making the articles his guide, takes his own course 
and compels them to follow. Even in the learned 
and popular work of the bishop of Lincoln, this feel- 
ing too often obtrudes itself, and in a great measure 
destroys the force of his arguments. If Scott's an- 
swer discovers less learning and good sense, it is, 
nevertheless, as far as the doctrines of the church are 
concerned, full and satisfactory. 

Whoever examines this controversy, particularly 
as it has been carried on by the Arminian party, must 
perceive how forcibly it illustrates what has already 
been said in regard to the inexpediency of all fixed 
formularies of faith. Why should articles, expressed 
in language not found in scripture, be retained, when 
their inevitable tendency is to cause dissentions and 
controversies in the church? Not one Calvinist, we 
are told, was present at the general convention of the 
American episcopal church, when the articles were 
adopted.* Why did not this convention reject the 
articles, which are so clearly calvinistic as to require 
volumes of explanations and paraphrases, even to 
show that they are not contradictory to the Arminian 
scheme. This point is the most that is pretended to 
be gained. To prove them favourable to this scheme, 
would require many more volumes. The American 
church, at least, could have no motives for resorting 
to "a well timed ambiguity" in teaching the doctrines 
of scripture, however such motives might have com- 
ported with the "prudence" of Cranmer. 

* How's Vindication, p. 278. Festivals and Fasts, p. 142, Note, 



140 



But instead of thinking it possible, that any new 
light could have been attained in two hundred years, 
and instead of acting on the broad principles of gos- 
pel liberty, the American episcopal convention, iu a 
free country, where no man, or body of men, dares 
encroach on the civil rights and privileges of a single 
individual, determined authoritatively, that no per- 
son, who does not believe in the supremacy of bi- 
shops, and who is not ordained by a bishop, can be 
an authorized religious teacher. And, as if to pre- 
vent the possibility of inquiry, the exercise of private 
judgment, or a free examination of the scriptures 
among its members, it fixed a criterion of christian 
faith, and a code of spiritual laws, to which all per- 
sons must conform, who would have any part in this 
true church. These things were done, let it be re- 
membered, in a country, which had lately triumphed 
in the cause of political liberty, and thrown off the 
yoke of civil bondage, which it had too much spirit, 
and too much virtuous independence to bear. 

If the members of the convention had actually 
settled it in their minds, that there could be no 
true church without some established formulary in 
addition to the Bible, they might have greatly im- 
proved upon the old articles, and spared them- 
selves much trouble, by passing a resolution some- 
what like the following; — That whereas, we believe 
the Bible to be the word of God, and to contain a 
revelation of his will in every thing essential to 
salvation; and whereas, we believe all men to have 
a natural right to worship God according to the dic- 
tates of their own conscience, — we agree to make 
this book the only rule of our faith and practice, and 



141 



to allow every one individually the privilege of study- 
ins;, and receiving it in that sense, which he sincerely 
thinks it conveys. Had the convention suhstituted 
such a resolution in the place of the articles, it would 
be no longer necessary for a large number of the 
church to be wasting their time in proving their opin- 
ions not to be contrary to the articles; but it might 
be much more profitably employed in searching the 
scriptures to know what opinions they ought to re- 
ceive. 

If there happened to be any in the convention, who 
had been so long attached to old customs, as to think 
forms of faith an essential part of religion, something 
like the following, for the sake of accommodation, 
might have been adopted. "I believe there is but one 
God, the Father, of whom are all things." "1 believe 
that Jesus Christ is the son of God." I believe "that 
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." 
J believe, that "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth 
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that 
God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
^aved. For with the heart man believeth unto right- 
eousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto 
salvation."* If it were thought important, there could 
be no very serious objection to adding something 
more to this creed, taking care always to use the 
precise language of scripture. But if it be abso- 
lutely necessary to have a formulary of faith, which 
is not expressed in scripture language, perhaps 
none can be more comprehensive and unexceptionable 
than this, — I believe in all the scriptures teach.. 

1 Cor. viii. 6.— -Acts viii. 37. — I Cor. xv. 3.-— Rom. x. 9. 
19 



Reverend and dear sir, 

The doctrine contained in the two first articles 
of the church, or what is commonly called the doc- 
trine of the trinity, you pass over very slightly; and 
yet it may be doubted, whether any doctrine of the 
church stands in more need of explanation to make it 
intelligible or edifying to its members. So far as it 
relates to the divinity of Christ, you acknowledge it 
to be of <*vital importance," and at the same time, de- 
clining to consider "the number gr force of the objec- 
tions against it," you content yourself with selecting 
in its support a few passages of scripture, as they are 
contained in Jones' work on the Trinity. Should your 
readers not be satisfied with these, you refer them for 
further information to the same source. 

The remainder of what I have to say shall be de- 
voted to this subject. I propose first to inquire into 
the scriptural grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
as it is stated in the articles of the church, and in 
other parts of the Book of Common Prayer; and after- 
wards to examine the import of the texts you have 



143 



quoted, as well as some others, which are usually ad- 
duced in proof of this doctrine. 

Before I take into consideration the articles above 
mentioned, 1 have some remarks to make on those 
parts of the Litany, which are intimately connected 
with this subject, The Litany commences with the 
following petitions, which make a part of every morn- 
ing service, and are rendered with an audible voice, 
both by the minister and people. 

"0 God, the father of Heaven; have mercy upon us 
miserable sinners. " 

"O God, the Son, Redeemer of the world; have 
mercy upon us miserable sinners. " 

"Oh God, the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the 
Father and the Hon; have mercy upon us miserable 
sinners." 

"Oh holy gl< rious and blessed Trinity, three per- 
sons and one God; have mercy upon us miserable 
sinners." 

In these petitions prayer is made separately and 
distinctly to God the Father, God the Son, God the 
Holy Ghost, and to the holy Trinity. Here are four 
distinct objects of worship, addressed as different be- 
ings, and designated by different characters. How 
contrary is this to the commands and example of our 
Saviour His command was, "thou shalt worship 
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." 
He prayed to the Father, and taught his disciples 
to pray to the Father. "At that time Jesus answer- 
ed and said, 1 thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven 
and earth." To his disciples he said, "After this 
manner pray ye; "Our Father, which art iu heaven." 
"In tnat day ve shall ask me nothing — whatsoever 



144 



ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it 
you." "The hour cometh and now is, when the true 
worshippers, shall worship the Father in spirit and 
in truth."* We thus perceive, that our blessed Lord 
considered the Father the only object of worship. 
We never hear of his worshipping himself, the Holy 
Ghost, or a Trinity. He never informed his disci- 
ples of any such objects of worship. 

But what is still more surprising in the worship of 
the church, is, that it is not only addressed to four 
distinct objects, but these objects are respectively cal- 
led Gods, A petition is first addressed separately and 
distinctly to God the Father; next, to £W the Son; then, 
to God the Holy Ghost; and last of all, to the Trini- 
ty. Let it be observed, that these are not taken col- 
lectively, but separately and exclusively. The Trini- 
ty differs only from the three first in being called a 
God consisting of three persons, whereas the others 
are spoken of as uncompounded beings. I do not say 
that Episcopalians profess to worship four Gods, or 
that in reading the Litany, they have in their minds 
four distinct objects of worship; but if they do not, it 
is quite certain their sentiments do not accord ypiih 
the language they use. At the best, this kind of lan- 
guage must destroy all just conceptions of the one 
true God, introduce confusion into the mind, and call 
it off from that pure and spiritual worship, which the 
scriptures enjoin. 

When the minister solemnly makes the following 
petition, "Oh God, the Holy Ghost, have mercy upou 
us miserable sinners/' and the people respond to it, 

; - Matth. iv. 10.— xi. 25— vi. 9.— John xvi. 23— John. iv. £S. 



145 



what ideas can they have of this being, whom they 
address as God, but that he is a being, who posses- 
ses power of himself, independently of any other be- 
ing, to grant their petition. The prayer would be un- 
meaning, if it were not accompanied with such ideas. 
The same may be said of each of the petitions, which 
are presented to the other three beings. Hence they, 
who worship according to the Litany, actually wor- 
ship four beings, each of whom is there called God.* 
But this is not all. Petition is also made to anoth- 
er being, who, although he is not, as each of the four 
above mentioned, distinguished by the title of God, is 
nevertheless addressed as a distinct being. The pe- 
tition runs as follows, "By the mystery of thy holy 
incarnation; by thy holy nativity and circumcision; by 
thy baptism, fasting, and temptation; by thine agony, 
and bloody sweat; by thy cross and passion; by thy 
precious death and burial, by thy glorious resurrec- 
tion and ascension; good Lord deliver us." Now r , to 
whatever being this prayer may be addressed, it can- 
not be to either of those mentioned above, for they are 
called Gods. But God is essentially a spirit, and no 
such properties can be applied to him, as incarnation 
nativity, circumcision, baptism, fasting, sweat, death 
and burial. The being here addressed, therefore, must 
be distinct from either of the others, and cannot be 
God. I suppose you will say it is Christ in his human 

% Mr, Jones of Nayland, to whose work you refer your readers 
for instruction on the trinity, says, "That in the three former peti- 
tions the unity in trinity; in the fourth the trinity in unity is wor- 
shipped."-— Cath. Doc. of the Trih. New-York, 1813, p. 178* 
Whether this be a clear and satisfactory explanation of the sub- 
ject, I will leave for others to decide* 



146 



nature. But what is be in bis human nature more or 
less than a man. It follows, that if you pray to him in 
his human nature, you pray to him as man. The con- 
clusion of the whole is, that in tbe Litany worship is of- 
fered to jive beings, four of whom are called Gods; 
and the fifth is addressed uuder such properties as 
belong only to a man. 

Such is the result to which it appears to me every 
one will come, who examines the Litauy without par„ 
tiality, and who suffers himself to be governed, in 
judging of its meaning, by the principles which 
usually guide him in ascertaining the sense of lan- 
guage. If the words are to be taken in their ordinary 
acceptation, they certainly cannot be received under 
any other construction. If you have secret ideas, and 
hidden correspondences attached to them, it will be 
easy enough to make them mean any thing. But that 
interpretation is of a very suspicious character, to say 
the least, which requires such aids to make it con- 
sistent or intelligible; and if we are any where to look 
for perspicuity, and a plain, natural use of words, 
one would suppose it ought to be in a settled form 
of prayer, which makes a part of the divine service 
of every sabbath. If it be said, that my conclusions 
are not just, because no episcopalian imagines himself 
to worship four Gods; I would reply, that I have not 
drawn these conclusions from any one's opinions, but 
from the language of the Litany itself. It is but 
reasonable to suppose, however, that they, who wor- 
ship in the language of this Litany, have correspond- 
ing opinions. To intimate the contrary would be an 
implied charge of insincerity, which I should be very 
unwilling to make against any exemplary christian. 



147 



I will next proceed to a general consideration of 
the doctrine of the Trinity* as it is unfolded in the 
first, second, and fifth articles of the church. 

Article i. "There is but one living and true God, 
everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infi- 
nite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and 
preserver of all things both visible and invisible. 
And in unity of this godhead, there be three persons, 
of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

Art. ii. "The Son, which is the Word of the Fa- 
ther, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very 
and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, 
took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, 
of her substance; so that two whole and perfect na- 
tures, that is to say, the godhead and the manhood, 
were joined together in one person^ never to be di- 
vided, whereoj is one Christ, very God, and very 
man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and bu- 
ried, to reconcile his Father to us, and be a sacrifice, 
not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of 
men. 

Art. v. "The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the 
Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and 
glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal 
God." 

To these articles it may be proper to add what is 
said on the same subject in the Nicene creed, as this 
is a received form in the church service. 

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only be- 
gotten son of God, begotten of his Father before all 
worlds; God of God, light of light, very God of very 



148 



God, begotten, not made, being of one substance witb 
the Father, by whom all things were made. 

"I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver 
of life, who proceed eth from the Father and Son; 
who, with the Father and Son together, is worshipped 
and glorified." 

The first thing which strikes one on reading these 
passages is the strangeness of their phraseology. In 
articles purporting to set forth some of the highest 
and most essential doctrines of christian faith, most 
persons would expect to recognize something, which 
they had seen in the scriptures. It is a remarkable 
feature in all the explanations, which the church has 
given of this doctrine, that in scarcely a single instance 
can you find three words together used in the same con- 
nexion as in the Bible. Take the following example. 
"And in unity of this godhead, there be three persons 
of one substance, power and eternity." This pas- 
sage is not in the scriptures. Separate it into parts, 
and you will be equally unsuccessful in finding them 
in the word of God. Nothing is said there of the 
unity of the godhead, or of any substance, which is 
composed of three persons. Nor can you any where 
find it expressed in the Bible, that Christ "is the very 
and eternal God, of one substance with the Father;" 
or that *\he took upon him man's nature;" or that in 
him "were two whole and perfect natures joined to- 
gether in one person." And above all, you cannot 
find in the holy scripiures any language, which bears 
the remotest resemblance to the unintelligible phra- 
seology, "very God and very man," "God of God, 
light of light, very God of very God." There are no 
such phrases in the Bible, as "God the Son," and 



149 



"God the Holy Ghost;" and instead of any such Ian- 
guage as, "holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three 
persons and one God," the word trinity is not found 
in the scriptures. It is a name for which the apos- 
tles had no occasion.* In short, so far as language 
is concerned, it would hardly be possible to conceive 
of a wider departure from the records of revealed 
truth, than is found in the phraseology, which the 
church has thought proper to employ in defining this 
doctrine of the trinity. 

Before we proceed any further, it may be well to 
take a short view of the different modes in which 
English writers, and principally those of the church, 
have explained this doctrine. First, the Athanasians, 
among whom were Dr. Waterland, Dr. Taylor, and 
probably archbishop Seeker, from the encomium he 
passes on the Athanasian creed, maintain, that the 
trinity consists of three distinct, independent, and 
equal persons, constituting one and the same God; or 
in other words, that "the Father is Almighty, the 
Son is Almighty, the Holy Ghost is Almighty, and yet 
there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. ?? f 

* The word trinity was not used till near the close of the second 
century, when it first occurs in the works of Theophilus, bishop of 
Antioch. The terms 'person and substance were not introduced 
till the third century, when they were first used in the Sabellian 
and Noetian controversies. 

t In his thirteenth Lecture on the church Catechism, archbishop 
Seeker speaks as follows. "Since, then, there is not a plurality 
of Gods; and yet the Son and Spirit are each of them God, no 
less than the Father; it plainly follows, that they are, in a man- 
ner by us inconceivable, so united to him, that these three are one: 
but still, in a manner equally inconceivable: so distinguished from 

20 



150 



Secondly, according to Mr. How's theory, there are 
three distinct, intelligent hypostases, each having a 
distinct, intelligent nature, united in some inexplica- 
ble manner so as to make one God, in somewhat the 
same way as the corporeal, sensitive, and intellectual 
faculties are united to form one man. Thirdly, Dr. 
Wallis was an advocate for the ^abelliau hypothesis, 
and held, that the three persons in the trinity were 
only three modes or relations, which the Deity bears 
to his creatures. This, also, was probably the opin- 
ion of archbishop Tillotson. Fourthly, bishop Pear- 
son supposes the Father to be an underived and es 
sential essence, and the Son to have received every 
thing by communication from God the Father. "There 
can be but one person/' says he, "originally of him- 
self subsisting in that infinite Being, because a plu- 
rality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily 
infer a multiplicity of Gods." The Son possessed the 
whole divine nature by communication, not by par. 
ticijpation, and in such a way, that he was as really 
God as the Father. Bishop Bull and Dr. Ouen 
adopted a similar theory.* Fifthly, iu the system of 

him, that no one of them is the other." Works, vol. vi. p. 126. 
This is indeed inconceivable, that these three beings should be 
"each of them God," and at the same time so united as to be "one," 
and yet "no one of them to be the other." 

* Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, Oxford, 1792, vol. 
i. p. 175, 217. The bishop speaks in further illustration of this 
doctrine somewhat in the language of the Nicene creed and of 
Augustin. "The Father is God, but not of God; light, but not 
of light; Christ is God, but of God; light, but of light. There 
is no difference or inequality in the nature or essence, because 
<he same in both; but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, hath 



151 



Df. Thomas Burnet, the Father is a self existent 
Being, the Son and Spirit are dependent; but so 
united, that divine perfections and worship may be 
ascribed to each. Sixthly, Mr. Baxter defines the 
three divine persons to be wisdom, power, and love; 
and illustrates his meaning by the vital power, intel- 
lect, and will in the soul of man, and by motion, 
light, and heat in the sun. For this explanation he 
was indebted to the sharpened wits of the schoolmen. 
Seventhly, bishop Burgess supposes the three per- 
sons of the Deity to make one God, but does not 
allow, that these persons are three beings. He makes 
out his position by the following syllogism. "The 
scriptures declare that there is only one God. The 
same scriptures declare, that there are three omni- 
present persons; but there cannot be two omnipre- 
sent beings; therefore the three omnipresent persons 
can be only one God." According to this hypothesis 
the trinity is made up of three nonentities. Eighthly, 
bishop Gastrell says, "the three names of God the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, must denote a three- 
fold difference or distinction belonging to God, but 
such as is consistent with the unity and simplicity of 
the divine nature; for each of these includes the whole 
idea of God, and something more. So far as they 
express the nature of God, they all adequately and 

that essence of himself, from none; Christ hath the same not of 
himself, but from him." p. 218. Augustin has it, "Filius est de 
Patre, et quicquid est filius, de illo est cujus est filius; ideo Dcn 
minum Jesum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum 
de Deo, sed tantum Deum; et dicimus Dominum Jesum lumen de 
lumine; Patrem uon dicimus lumen de lumine, sed tantum la- 
men." 



152 

exactly signify the same. It is the additional significa- 
tion, which makes all the distinction between thein." 
According to bishop Grastrell, then, "the Father in- 
cludes the whole idea of God, and something more; 
the Son includes the whole idea of God, and some- 
thing more; the Holy Ghost includes the whole idea 
of God and something more; while altogether, the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost make one en- 
tire God, and no more."* Ninthly, a scheme, which 
certainly will vie with any other for novelty, is that 
lately advanced by Mr. Heber, in his Bamplon Lec- 
tures. He has made the marvellous discovery, that 
the second and third persons in the trinity are no 
other than the angels Michael and Gabriel f It was 
the second person, who conversed with Moses from 
Mount Sinai; and the third person, who constituted 
the Jewish Schekinah. Lastly, I will meution only 
one scheme more, which is that of Dr. Sherlock. I 
have reserved it till the last, because it seems to be in 
more exact accordance with the articles of the church, 
than either of the others, unless it be the Athanasian. 
He says, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are as 
really distinct persons, as Peter, James, and John; 
each of which is God. We must allow each person 
to be a God. These three infinite minds are dis- 
tinguished, just as three created minds are, by self 
consciousness. And by mutual consciousness each 

* Relsham's Reply to Dr. Moysey, Lond. 1819, p. 32. 

t Heber's Bampton Lectures, preached before the University 
of Oxford, 1815, Lec. iv. p. 21 ], 228. To clear up this point the 
lecturer levies most heavily upon the Jewish Rabbis, the Targums", 
the Mahometan doctors, and the ancient Fathers. Appendix 
to Lec, it. p. 240—250. 



153 



person of these has the ivliole wisdom, power, and 
goodness of the other two."* 

Such have been the various and contradictory opin- • 
ions of men, who have subscribed to the articles of 
the church. May it not be thought a little remark- 
able, that articles, which were made for the ex- 
press purpose of "avoiding diversities of opinion," 
should have been so unsuccessful in this particular? 
If it were thought necessary to deviate so widely from 
scripture language, in expressing what was consider- 
ed a most essential doctrine of christian faith, should 
it not have been deemed an object of the very first im- 
portance to use terms so perspicuous and direct, as to 
prevent the possibility of misapprehending their mean- 
ing? What benefit can the church derive from articles, 
which are so vague and unintelligible, as to lead its 
most distinguished members into endless controversies, 
and which may be appealed to, with equal confidence, 
by those who support opinions as opposite as light to 
darkness? 

But when we examine the account of the trinity, 
which the church hag placed at the head of its arti- 
cles, we can hardly be surprised, that its most learn- 
ed doctors should not be able to agree in any particu- 

*This was the ground, which Dr. Sherlock took in the celebrat- 
ed controversy between him and Dr. South. The latter main- 
tained, that there was only one infinite eternal mind, and three 
somethings, which were not distinct minds, but called by different 
names, as modes, faculties, subsistences. Lind. Apol, p. 63. For a 
more full account of the above statements, see Doddridge's Lec- 
tures, p. vii. prop. 132. Adams's Dictionary of Religions, fourth 
ed. Bost. p. 291. Worcester's Trinitarian Review, No. 1, Re- 
ply to Dr. Moysey t p. 32, 123, Rees' CycL Art. Tiin. 



154 



lar mode of interpretation. How can learning or 
genius reconcile essential and necessary contradic- 
tions? How can they draw rational or intelligible con- 
clusions from premises, which are at variance with the 
immutable truths of nature? Had trinitariaus always 
been required, at the very outset of their theories, to 
lay down axioms from which they never should de- 
part, and to give clear definitions of all the technical 
terms they were to employ, the whole scheme would 
long ago have disappeared with the primalities, 
the essences, and occult qualities of the schoolmen. 
Had they all agreed in attaching some clear and dis- 
tinct ideas to the terms, person, substance, essence, 
properties, nature, mode, relation, hypostasis, and 
many others, which have been transplanted from the 
technical theology and absurd metaphysics of the dark 
ages, this controversy about the trinity would have 
been reduced to an exceedingly narrow compass. 
When men use words without any settled meaniug, 
or when different defenders of the same theory use the 
same words iu contrary meanings, it would be mar- 
vellous indeed if they should come to any terms of 
agreement, elicit much light in their researches, or do 
much towards advancing the cause of truth. Is it not 
some objection against a doctrine, that it cannot be ex- 
pressed in scripture language, nor defined in any lan- 
guage so as to be understood; and that its ablest de- 
feu ders give contrary explanations of its most impor- 
tant points?* 

* The following example will show how. unintelligibly, not to 
say contradictorily, a very learned, and a very great man could 
talk on the trinity, "lhat there is one divine nature, or essence, 



155 



One of the most remarkable particulars in the doc- 
trine of the trinity as received by the church, is the 
glaring and inevitable contradiction which it contains: 
In the first place, it is said, "There is but one living 
and true God." This is an intelligible proposition. 
But immediately after, it is added, "there be three per- 
sons" in this God. This, in connexion with the other, 
is an unintelligible proposition, unless it can be prov- 
ed by some new kind of logic, that one is three. Lest 
any doubt should remain about the meaning of this 
word person, it is immediately after added, that the 
second person is "very God," and the third, "very 
and eternal God." Here then is a being composed of 
three persons, one of whom is called "the living and 
true God," the other "very God," and the last "very 
and eternal God," and yet these three beings make 

common unto three persons incomprehensibly united and ineffably 
distinguished; united in essential attributes, distinguished by par- 
ticular idioms and relations; all equally infinite in every divine 
perfection, each different from the other in order and manner of 
subsistence, that there is a mutual inexistence in all, and all in one; 
a communication without any deprivation or diminution in the 
communicant; an eternal generation, and an eternal procession, 
without precedence or succession, without proper causality or de- 
pendence; a Father imparting his own, and the Son receiving his 
Father's life, and a spirit issuing from both, without any division or 
multiplication of essence, — these are notions, which may well puz- 
zle our reason in conceiving how they agree, but should not stag- 
ger our faith in asserting that they are true." Barrow's Sermons, 
vol. ii. p. 423. 

When it is possible for us to believe propositions to which we 
can affix no ideas, and which contain as many contradictions as 
distinct parts, then perhaps we may assent to " these notions" with-* 
out "staggering our faith," but not before. 



156 



but one God! Of such a docrine as this, it is no won- 
der that Dr. South should say, "Were it not to be 
adored as a mystery, it would be exploded as a con* 
tradiction"* By the same course of reasoning it 
might be made out, that a mile is a league, because a 
league consists of three miles; or you might prove, 
with certain of the ancient fathers, that three men are 
one man, having only a "numerical difference," and 
agreeing in "essential essence."f 

There is also a very strange contradiction between 
the apostles' creed, and the fifth article of the church. 
In the creed it is said, the "Son was conceived of the 
Holy Ghost;" but in the article we are told, that the 
"Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the 
Son " How these propositions are to be reconciled 
may well occupy the attention of churchmen, or of any 

f. "That any one should be both father a,nd son to the same per- 
son, produce himself, be cause and effect too, and so the copy i>ive 
being to its original, seems at first sight so very strange and unac 
countable, that were it not to be adored as a mystery, it would be 
exploded as a contradiction." South's Sermons, vol. Hi. p. 140. 
JLond. 1718. And yet this "strange and unaccountable mystery," 
is what Dr. South labours through a whole sermon to explain, 

t In speaking of the ancient ^doctrine of Gregory Nyssen, Cyril, 
Maximus the martyr, and others, Cud worth observes, "These the- 
ologers supposed the three persons of their trinity to have really 
no other, than a specific unity, or identity; and because it seems 
plainly to follow from hence, that therefore they must needs be 
as much three Gods, as three men are three men; these learned 
fathers endeavoured with their logic to prove, that three men ara 
but abusively and improperly so called three, they being really and 
truly but one, because there is but one and the sam,e specific essence 
or substance of human nature in them all." Cudworth's Intellec 
tual System, p. 604, Lond. 1678. 



157 



persons, who believe them both to be true. The 
Greek church has been more circumspect, for although 
it admits the Athanasian and Nicene creeds, it affirms 
that the Holy Spirit "is from the Father only, and 
not from the Father and Son,"- and it has altered the 
creeds accordingly.* 

In pursuing this examination, 1 shall endeavour to 
keep as nearly as possible to that kind of trinity, 
which is to be understood from the plain language of 
the articles, and which is defined in fewer words by 
bishop Sherlock. According to this theory, the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit are as essentially three distinct 
beings, as three men are distinct beings; each is as 
essentially (rod, as the others; each has the same "sub- 
stance, power and eternity," as the others; and, conse- 
quently, each has independently all the attributes of 
the others. The attributes of the Father are infinite; 
therefore, the attributes of the Son and Holy Spirit 
are infinite. All the properties and perfections, which 
belong to one, belong in an equal degree to each of 
the others. What you can say of one, you can say 
of either of the others. 

The kind of trinity, therefore, which the church 
adopts, and to which I shall direct my remarks, may 
be summed up in the following words. 

I. There is one God. 

II. This God consists of three persons, or beings, 
each of whom, separately considered, is as essentially 
God, as all three are when united. 

III. Jesus Christ is one of these beings, and "per- 
fect God," at the same time he is "perfect man." 



* New Edinb. Ency. vol. v. p, 742., 



158 



I. The lirst proposition is oneto which all chris- 
tians, at least in words, assent. All sects profess to s 
make the unity of God a fundamental doctrine. The 
testimony of nature and of scripture is too strong to be 
resisted. But this doctrine, which is so simple and 
obvious in itself, has been so much disfigured and ob- 
scured as scarcely to be recognized amidst the rub- 
bish, which has been collected around it by the fancy 
anjj prejudices of men. While the Maker of heaven 
and earth continued to be adored, as the one Supreme 
God, men had a definite and glorious object of wor- 
ship, in whom all their pious affections centred, and 
to whom alone they attributed honour, glory, and do- 
minion. But now we are made acquainted with a 
threefold being. The Supreme God is one, yet he is 
three. He is now a "triune God," and is to be wor- 
shipped as "God in trinity, and trinity in unity." Let 
us see what grounds theye are, either in tbe nature 
of the Supreme Being, or in his revealed word, for 
applying to him such unscriptural names, and attri- 
buting to him such strange and inconsistent proper- 
ties. 

i« The unity of God is a simple, indivisible, and 
perfect unity. His essence, substance, or nature, 
is essentially one. It cannot be divided in parts. 
The essence or substance of God, is God himself. 
Jlis absolute perfection consists in his being one, 
independently of all things else. The moment you 
conceive him to be divided into parts, you destroy 
his character as God. But unless he be supposed 
to be separated into parts, how can he be said to exist 
in three persons? Or how can the word three be ap- 
plied to him in any sense? What idea Gould be form*- 



159 



ed of such a beiug? Not that he is one, but f&rea, 
His unity would be destroyed.* 

2. Again, the attributes of the Deity are infinite. 
He has infinite power, knowledge, and wisdom. If 
there were more than one such being, neither of them 
could be the Supreme Being. God could not be the 
only omniscient being, if any other knew as much as 
he; nor could he be the only omnipotent being, if any 
other had as much power. If the Son and Holy 
Spirit be each "very God," they must have the per- 
feet attributes of God, and be in all respects equal. 
This is not impossible. There may be three infinitely 
perfect beings. But in such case, no one would be 
above or below the other; no one, more than ano- 
ther, could be called God on account of any pre- 
eminence of character. There would indeed be three 
Gods, but not one Supreme God. 

3. The great doctrine of the unity of God is, also, 
one of the most prominent in the scriptures. The 
first truth, which Moses delivered to the Israelites, on 
giving them the law, was, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord 
our God is one Lurd." This was repeated by our 
Saviour to the scribe, who replied, "there is one 
Gon, and there is none other but he." Mark xii. 2d, 
32. "The Lord he is God, and there is none else be- 

* Deus cum suraraum magnum sit recte Veritas nostra pronun,- 
ciavit, Deus si non uhus est, non est. Non quasi dubitemus esse 
Deum, dicendo, si non untis, non est Deus; sed quia, quern confi- 
dimus esse, idem deiiniamus esse, quod si non est, Deus non est* 
sumraum scilicet magnum, Porro, suinmum magnum unicum sit 
necesse est, ergo et Deus unicus erit, non aliter Deu9, nisi sum- 
mum magnum, nec aliter summum magnum, nisi parem non ha- 
bens, nec aliter parem non habens, nisi unicus fuerit. Tertul- 
adv. Marcion. lib; i. c. S. Yi<l. Pearson on the Creed, vol. ii. p. 21, 



160 



sides him/* Deut. iv. 35. "I am God, and there is 
none else; 1 am God, and there is none like me." 
Isai. xlvi. 9. "Unto us there is but one God, the 
Father, of whom are all things." 1 Cor. viii. 6. It is 
unnecessary to select other passages. No truth is 
more constantly urged, than the unity and supremacy 
of God. 

II. My next inquiry shall be, whether Christ were 
this Supreme God. If so wonderful a fact as this be 
contained in the scriptures, we must expect to find it 
expressed in the most unequivocal and positive terms. 
To render it possible, that a being who was born, who 
had the feelings, affections, and passions of a man, who 
felt the pains of hunger and thirst, who was affected 
with joy and grief, was subject to bodily and men- 
tal sufferings, and at length died, — to render it possi- 
ble, that such a being could be the eternal God, re- 
quires a weight of evidence, in comparison with 
which, the united testimony of every human being 
since the world began would be nothing, without a 
full, express, and positive revelation from God him- 
self. It is not a doctrine, which any one should ven 
ture to collect from hints and allusions, or to build up 
from a few doubtful passages of scripture. If it be a 
truth, it must be written in characters which cannot be 
mistaken, and shine forth as the most conspicuous ob- 
ject in every part of the word of God. 

In discussing this question we can appeal to no 
higher authority, than that of our Saviour himself. Let 
tis see if we can infer from his own language, that he 
was the Supreme God. 

1. To those who were disposed to kill him for heal- 
ing the sick man on the sabbath day, he said, "As the 



161 



Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son 
to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to 
execute judgment, also, because he is the Son of 
man." John v. 26, 27. Do you understand from 
this, that the same being, who gave life and authority, 
was the being himself, who received them? Were the 
giver, and receiver the same? 

2. Again, "My meat is to do the will of him, that 
sent me, and to finish his work." John iv. 34. "I 
seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father, 
which hath sent me." v. 30. "My doctrine is not 
mine, but his that sent me." vii. 16. "I have not 
spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he 
gave me a commandment what I should say, and 
what I should speak." xii. 49. "I proceeded forth 
and came from God; neither came I of myself, but Jw 
sent me." viii. 42. Here Christ explicitly declares 
in several places, that he was sent by the Father. 
Would this language be intelligible if Christ were 
God? He came not to do his own will, but the will 
of the Father. In what terms can you more clearly 
define two distinct beings, than by attributing to them 
two wills? When he says "my doctrine is not mine," 
are we to understand directly the contrary, that it was 
his? When he says "he came from God," does he 
mean that he came from himself? If the notion had 
prevailed in the days of our Saviour, that he was 
God, and it had been his special purpose to confute 
such an error, it were difficult to conceive how he 
could use stronger language than what is contained 
in these passages. He says, again, "my Father is 
greater than I." John xiv. 28, from which it certainly 



162 



does not follow, that he and the Father are the same. 
When our Lord told his disciples, that "he came forth 
from the Father," and they replied, "we believe, that 
thou earnest forth from God,"* did they mean, that 
they believed him to be God, and that he came forth 
from himself? And what would be the meaning of the 
passage, "he shall know my doctriue, whether it be 
of God, or whether I speak of myself,"f if God 
and himself were the same being? 

3. As the Lord Jesus was not God, so he did not 
in himself possess the attributes of God. He uni- 
formly ascribed all power, knowledge, goodness, and 
wisdom to the Father, and repeatedly affirmed, that 
he derived every thing from the Father. 

God is omnipotent, and needs no aid from any 
other being. But Jesus declares, "I can of mine own 
self do nothing." John v. 30. "The Father, that 
dwelleth in me, he doth the works." xiv. 10. "The 
Son can do nothing of himself , but what he seeth the 
Father do." v. 19. In the discourses from which 
these texls are taken, it seems to be his whole design 
to convince the people, that the miracles and wonder- 
ful works, which they had seen him perform, were 
not done by any power of his own, but entirely by 
the power, which he had received from God. There 
is no reason why he should wish the people to be de- 
ceived on this point. If he had doue these works by 
his own power, why should he refer them to another? 
This would be detracting from the weight of his own 
character, and would tend rather to defeat, than 
strengthen his purpose of establishing his divine 



* John xvi. 30. 



t John vii. 17. 



163 



authority. If, as he says, he could not do these- 
things without aid from God, it is evident lie did not 
possess the same power as God. 

4. Again, God is omniscient. Every thing is 
known to him from the beginning to the end. But 
the Lord Jesus expressly declares, that he has not 
a knowledge of all future events. "As my Father 
hath taught me, I speak these things." John viii. 28. 
If he had known all things from the beginning, he 
could not be taught Whatever is learnt from a 
teacher is something, which was not before known. 
After having described many of the signs and won- 
ders, which should precede the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, or as it is thought by many, the day of judg- 
ment, he concludes, "But of that day, and that hour 
knoweth no man, no, not the angels, which are in 
h.eaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." Mark 
xiii. 32. Here is a positive declaration on the part 
of our Saviour, that he did not know what the Father 
knew. His knowledge was limited; finite and not 
infinite; not the knowledge of God, but of a subordi- 
nate being. 

5. At another time, when one called him "Good 
Master," he replied, "Why callest thou me good? 
There is none good but one, that is God." Matt. xix. 
17. Two things are evident in this reply; first, that 
he represented himself as a distinct being from God; 
and secondly, that he did not possess the same de- 
gree of goodness. It is not important to inquire in 
how high a degree this attribute existed in him. It 
is enough, that he acknowledges it to be imperfect, 
and inferior to the goodness of God. The one is in- 
finite, the other limited. 



164 



6. St Luke bears testimony, that "Jesus increased 
in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and 
man." ii. 52. How could he increase in wisdom, if' 
he were God, and had originally all wisdom? How 
could he increase in favour with God, if he had from 
the beginning all the divine perfections? The wisdom 
of God is perfect. According to the scriptures, the 
wisdom of Christ was imperfect.* 

We have thus seen from the scriptures, and mostly 
from our Saviour's own words, that he was not the 
one true God, and that the attributes, which consti- 
tute the perfection of the divine nature, were possess- 
ed by him in a limited and inferior degree. 

He was a derived being, because he came forth 
from the Father, and received all knowledge and 
power from him. 

He was a subordinate being, because he did 
nothing of himself, but obeyed the will of the Fa- 
ther. 

It is, nevertheless, the doctrine of the church, that 
he is "God of God, very God of very God." 

Ilf . I am aware that the church has a way of get- 
ting over all these difficulties, and still maintaining 
that the Lord Jesus is God. They, who believe in 

* Theodore of Mopsuetia maintained, that Christ had two souls,, 
one distinct from the Word. This he said was necessary to ac- 
count for many of his actions. According; to him, it was not the 
dTvine Word, which increased in wisdom, and suffered; but the 
other soul of Christ. Butler's Horse Biblicee, p. 210. 

Theodore, bishop of Pharan, and Sergius held, that although 
Christ had two natures, he had but one will. This opinion was 
called a heresy, and condemned in the council at Rome, A..D. 
649. Ibid. p. 211. 



165 

the doctrine of the trinity, have a never failing expe- 
dient, to which they resort with equal success in every 
emergency, — a sort of magical key, which unlocks 
with equal ease all the entrances to the difficult parts 
of scripture. It has been decreed by councils, and 
settled by convocations of bishops, and other divines, 
"that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, 
the godhead and manhood, were joined together in 
one person, never to be divided, whereof is one 
Christ, very God and very man." As this scheme 
of two natures is the chain which holds the trinity 
together, I hope it will not be thought amiss, if I stop 
to examine it with some care. 

1. It cannot be deemed an impertinent question for 
me first to ask, what proof is found in the scripture 
of such a doctrine? This is the only test by which 
we ought to abide. I have never been able to find a 
single passage in which our Saviour, or his apostles, 
or any other persons speak of these two natures. In 
all the discourses of Jesus to his disciples and to 
the people, he never once intimated that he was 
two beings, and spoke sometimes in the character 
of one, and sometimes in the character of the other. 
If he actually possessed two natures, why should 
he not make it known? How could the people tell 
when he spoke as God, and when as man; and 
what could prevent their being perpetually deceived? 
To have made his instructions intelligible, or pro- 
ductive of any profit to his hearers, it would have 
been necessary on every occasiou to tell them in what 
character he was speaking. But so far from this, he 
always spake of himself as one person, and never 



166 



once intimated, that be had more than one character 
or nature. 

2. By this scheme of two natures, trinitarians ex- 
plain without difficulty all the words of Christ. They 
take upon themselves to judge, when he speaks as 
God, and when he speaks as man. For instance, 
when he says, "not my will, but thine be done," 
they say he speaks as man. That is, the part of 
him which is man, addresses the part of him, 
which is God. They do not recollect, that this is 
making two wills in him, and one opposed to the 
other. What idea can you form of a being, who has 
two opposite w ills? >\ hat more clearly designates a 
distinct being, than a distinct will? If Christ had not 
such a will, how can be in any sense, be called one 
being, or "one Christ?" If he had such a will, how 
can he be called two? 

3. Let those, who believe in this double character 
of Christ, answer the questions, "to which of these be- 
ings St. Paul alludes in the phrase, 'Our Lord Jesus 
Christ?' Are we to understand here the ' very God,' 
or 'very man?' Does it require two distinct beings 
for the 'one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
things?' Have we two distinct beings for the 'one 
mediator between God and men?' Have we two 
distinct beings for the one 'head over all things to 
the church?' Do these two distinct beings consti- 
tute the one person, who is seated at the right hand 
of God?"* Every oue should be able to give ra- 
tional answers to these questions, and find some di- 
rect testimony in the scripture for this singular doc- 
trine, before he- gives it his assent. 

' See Worcester's Trinitarian Review, No. 3. p. 95, 



167 



4. As this scheme of a double nature is not sup- 
ported by any positive scriptural evidence, and is ex- 
tremely repugnant to every dictate of the understand- 
ing, it may be well to trace out some of the conse- 
quences of admitting such an expedient, as a guide in 
the interpretation of the revealed word of God. In 
the first place, it makes the language of Christ in 
many instances inconsistent with veracity. It causes 
him to say, that he could not do, what he could do. 
If he were the supreme God, and had infinite power, 
he could do all things. To say that he "could do 
nothing of himself," would not be true, in whatever 
nature he might say it. For if he were God, he 
could of himself do every thing; otherwise the human 
nature might control the divine, which I suppose no 
one will allow. He could never have a deficiency of 
power in any one nature, if he were God in any 
other. 

5. Similar remarks may be made in regard to the 
passage in which he tells his disciples, that he did not 
know the time when those dreadful calamities, which 
he had been describing, would happen. They must 
have been eager to know at what period these direful 
predictions were to be accomplished. Yet he told 
them he did not know. But if he were the supreme 
God, he knew all things, and must have known "the 
day and the hour" perfectly well. Nor could he 
know a thing as God, and not know it as man. He 
could not know a thing, and be ignorant of it at the 
same time. How then, if he were God, could it be 
true for him to tell his disciples, that he did not know 
the time when his predictions would come to pass? 



168 



6. These two beings, or natures, although they 
make one ferson, have properties totally inconsistent 
with each other. This compound person has all the 
perfections of God, and all the imperfections of man. 
It is infinite and finite; possessing all power, and yet 
dependant; knowing all things, yet limited in know* 
ledge; immutable, yet subject to perpetual change; 
incapable of suffering, and yet feeling the pains and 
calamities incident to human life; mortal, and yet im- 
mortal. All this, to be sure, is absurd and impos- 
sible; but it is a necessary inference from this doc- 
trine of two natures in one person. 

7. To interpret the scriptures by this scheme, 
would also introduce the greatest confusion and un- 
certainty. You may assigu any meaning you choose 
to almost every word, which Jesus spoke concerning 
himself, or which the apostles wrote about him, and 
another may give, with equal authority, a directly con- 
trary meaning. One may say he speaks as God, and 
another he speaks as man in the same place. Each 
may quote the same words to prove opposite posi- 
tions, and they will apply equally as well to a false as 
a true argument. No combination of words, which 
Jesus could have used, would prove him not to be 
God. Suppose he had said in plain terms in every dis- 
course he uttered, lam not God; and suppose the same 
had been often repeated by his apostles, it would 
prove nothing. We should be told, that he spoke it 
as man. Is it not obvious, that such a system of in- 
terpretation as this would make the most important 
parts of scripture, not only unintelligible, but contra- 
dictory? In what respect does it differ from the cabal- 
ism of the Jews, or the esoteric doctrines of mystical 



169 



philosophy? The Jews pretended, that they had a 
written and an oral law, a visible and an invisible. 
The words of Moses were mere symbols of a recon- 
dite meaning. The hidden sense was always consid- 
ered the true one, although it often happened, that 
this was contrary to the visible sense. 80 it is with 
this mystical doctrine of two natures. The common 
use of words is laid aside. The visible is made to 
give way to the invisible; the plain sense of language 
is sacrificed to a hidden sense. Such a principle 
must destroy all certainty in the scriptures, and in- 
volve the inquirer in endless perplexities and confu- 
sion. Yet such is the principle, by which the fabric 
of the trinity is held together. 

8. Moreover, this doctrine of two natures, when 
carried to its full extent, will tend just as strongly to 
prove the Son inferior, as equal to the Father. You 
can prove, that he is not God, and does not possess 
the divine attributes, by the same course of reasoning, 
which you employ to prove, that he is God. Since 
his two natures are essentially united in one, to make 
the "one Lord Jesus Christ," you may deny of him 
absolutely what does not belong to him in both na- 
tures. When he says, indefinitely, that he does not 
possess all power, all knowledge, all goodness, with- 
out intimating that he speaks of himself in any other 
character than the "one person," or "one Christ;" 
what else can he mean, except that in this character 
he is limited in these attributes? Now in this char- 
acter he is essentially one, and "never to be divided;" 
and in this character, if in any, he is God, or as bi- 
shop Sherlock expresses it, "a God," But God is 



170 



perfect. The "one Christ," in his most absolute 
character, is imperfect, and therefore cannot be God. 

9- In every attempt to prove this doctrine, Christ 
must be considered as always having spoken with a 
mental reservation, — saying one thing and meaning 
another You are not to interpret his words from 
what he said, but from what he retained behind, 
and did not think proper to express. Suppose this 
were to be made a principle in writing and conver- 
sation; where would be truth, knowledge, or any 
thing else, which could promote the virtue, order, and 
happiness of society? There could be no language, 
which might not be perverted. Suppose any one 
were to say the Apostles' creed in the manner of 
speaking, which is attributed to our Saviour. He 
might deny every article, which relates to Christ, and 
still insist that he recites it correctly. He might say, 
"Jesus Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary; did 
not suffer under Pontius Pilate; was not crucified, 
dead, and buried; did not rise from the dead on the 
third day; did not ascend up into heaven." If he 
were to repeat the creed wiih these negatives, his 
language would be strictly correct, although he might 
firmly believe every word of the creed, as it stands 
in the Book of Common Prayer. He has only taken 
the liberty of mental reservation. If you were to tell 
him, that he had denied some of the positive declara- 
tions, and most important doctrines of scripture, he 
w>uld reply, this is a mistake; I had in mind the 
divine nature of Christ, which could neither be born, 
suffer, nor die.* 

*For some forcible remarks on this subject of two natures, see 
Emlyn's Works, v. i. p. 98—105. 



in 



10. I will not pursue these consequences any far- 
ther. Everyone must see to what contradictions and 
confusion they lead. That a principle of interpre- 
tation, which will admit of such consequences, should 
ever have been resorted to, can only be accounted for 
by its being a necessary support of the trinity. A doc- 
trine, which does so much violence to the understand- 
ing, as this scheme of two natures, and which is not 
even countenanced by a single direct allusion in the 
scriptures, — such a doctrine could not have been in- 
vented, except as a necessary expedient. When the 
notion began to prevail, that there were three beings, 
each possessing equal perfections, or in other words, 
each equally God, so many passages started forth, in 
every page of the New Testament, to prove the sub- 
ordinate and dependant character of Christ, that this 
scheme readily suggested itself as the only possible 
one, which could give the least semblance of con- 
sistency to a doctrine apparently so irrational and so 
un scriptural as the trinity. To preserve consistency 
in this doctrine, another was devised no less incon- 
sistent, irrational, and un scriptural. 

IV. We have thus seen, that Jesus Christ was 
not the one true God, but a subordinate being. We 
are next to inquire whether the Holy Spirit be the 
one true God. According to the fifth article of the 
church, "The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Fa- 
ther and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and 
glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal 
God." In most cases, one being proceeding from 
another would denote a difference in those two beings. 
Here the Holy Spirit is said not only to be of one 
substance with the Father and the Son, but to be it- 



173 



self the "very God," from whom it proceeds. Such 
a mystery as this, it must be allowed, is uot to be 
understood. I shall neither attempt to conceive, nor 
explain the doctrine of procession, but shall confine 
myself to the inquiry, whether the Holy Spirit be a 
distinct being, and be at the same time, seperately 
considered, the "eternal God," and the "one Lord 
Jesus Christ." 

1. If the Holy Spirit be God, it must be self-ex- 
istent, and independent. The fifth article, and the 
Nicene creed say, it "proceeds from the Father and 
Son." It cannot, therefore, have had existence ori- 
ginally in itself; and if it be a distinct being, it must, 
according to the article and creed, be derived and de- 
pendant, and consequently not God. 

2. There can be little doubt, that the phrase Holy 
Ghost, or Holy Spirit, is often used in the sacred 
writings synonymously with God. In such cases it 
is simply a name of the Supreme Being. This use 
of the phrase is very rational. What is the Holy 
Spirit, but the spirit of God, and what is the hpirit 
of God, but God himself? It is not a "substance," 
which has proceeded from the Father. It is in 
reality God. When Elihu, one of Job's friends 
said, "The Spirit of God made me,"* what could 
lie mean, but that God made him? When the Psalm- 
ist exclaims, "Whither shall I go from thy Spi- 
rit 9 "\ what else is it but to say, "whither shall I 
go from thee?" When Peter reprimanded Ananias 
and Sapphira for concealing a part of their goods, he 
nsked them, "How is it that ye have agreed together 



* Job xxxiiL 4. 



t Psalm cxxxix. 7, 



173 



to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" Acts v. 9. On 
another occasion the same apostle said to those, who 
wished to make the Mosaic institutions binding on 
the christian converts, "Now, therefore, why tempt 
ye God? Acts xv. 10. In both these passages it is 
evident the object tempted was the same. It is a 
common phraseology with the prophets, "Thus saith 
the Lord," "Thus saith the God of Israel," "Jeho- 
vah saith." The same phraseology is used in dif^ 
ferent parts of the scriptures in relation to the Holy 
Spirit. When Agabus predicted the disasters, which 
would happen to St. Paul at Jerusalem, he commenc- 
ed as follows; "Thus saith the Holy Spirit," Acts 
xxi. S. In writing to the Hebrews the apostle uses 
nearly the same expression, "Wherefore, as the 
Holy Spirit saith, to day, if ye will hear my voice." 
iii. 10. From these examples it appears, that the 
names Holy Spirit, God, Lord, Jehovah, were used 
promiscuously to denote the Supreme Being. When 
actions, or words, or thoughts, are attributed to the 
Holy Spirit, it is the same thing as attributing them 
to God. Any arguments drawn from these to prove, 
that the Holy Spirit is a distinct being from God, 
would be equally strong to prove, that Jehovah and 
God are two distinct beings. 

3. Another use of the term, Holy Spirit, and this 
much the most extensive one, is when it denotes cer- 
tain powers, gifts, or influences communicated to any 
person in a supernatural degree. These are derived 
wholly from God. The Being, who could originally 
form the mind, and endow it with such high and va- 
ried powers as it naturally possesses, can modify these 
powers, add to their strength, or influence their action. 
M 



174 



When ibis lias been done in such a way as to produce 
visible effects, it has been called the operation of his 
spirit, or of the Holy Spirit. These powers were 
abundantly granted to the prophets of old, and in them 
they were called the gift of prophecy. By these su- 
pernatural powers, which were given to him without 
measure, our Saviour was enabled to perform mira- 
cles, to foretell future events, and to do all the won- 
derful works which marked the acts of his life, and 
which confirmed the truth of his doctrines. Jesus is 
often represented as being influenced, or guided by 
this spirit. The spirit of God "descended upon him 
at his baptism/' "Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit 
returned from Jordan." Luke iv. 1. "And Jesus re- 
turned in the power of the spirit into Gallilee." v. 14, 
He spoke of performing miracles "by the spirit of 
God." Matth. xii. 28. What else are we to under- 
stand by these passages, but that God bestowed on 
him extraordinary powers, by which he was enabled 
to exhibit proofs of his divine commission? This fact 
is also an argument against the notion of two natures; 
for if he were himself God, why should it be con- 
stantly repeated, that he received aid from any other 
source? By the same miraculous powers, enjoyed in 
a less degree, the apostles were qualified for promul- 
gating the true religion, by convincing the world that 
Jesus was Christ, and that his religion was from 
God. 

4. In no instance, where the phrase Holy Spirit is 
used to signify these powers, can it be made to be a 
title of the Supreme Being. It can never be called 
"very and eternal Gud." I have room for very few 
examples, but will endeavour to select some of tire 



if 5 



more prominent. The apostle writes thus to the 
Corinthians; "Know ye not that ye are the temple of 
God , and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 
1 Cor. iii. 16. "That good thing, which was com- 
mitted unto thee, keep by the Holy Spirit which 
dwelleth in us." 2 Tim. i 14. In neither of these- 
passages can we suppose the word spirit stand's for a 
person, or being. The most it can imply, is an affec- 
tion of the mind. St. Paul speaks "of the Holy 
Spirit, which God shed on us abundantly." Tit. iii. 
6. Again, "on the Gentiles, also, was poured out the 
gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts x. 45. Now these 
are characteristics of the Holy Spirit, which it could 
never have, if it were a person, or a distinct being. 
How can God pour out, or shed on us this Spirit in 
any other way, than by influencing our minds and 
leading us to good purposes? 

5. John the baptist, in speaking of the Lord Jesus, 
said, "God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto 
him." John iii. 34. "Hereby know we, that we 
dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us 
of his Spirit." 1 John iv. 13. "Ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts ii. 38. "Then laid 
they their hands on them, and they received the 
Holy Spirit." viii. 17. Instances are frequent in 
which the Holy Spirit is said to have been given and 
received. But what sense will these passages make, 
if you use them with reference to a person, or being, 
or to the "eternal God?" Men may receive divine 
powers, they may have the powers, which they alrea- 
dy possess, enlarged to an indefinite degree, they may 
receive such qualities as will strengthen the virtuous 
principles, and improve the disposition and temper; 



176 



and this is the only way in which they can be said to 
receive the Holy Spirit. Barnabas is described as a 
"good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and faith." 
Acts xi. 24. It is often said of different persons, that 
they were filled with the Holy Spirit. This use of 
the phrase surely denotes qualities of the mind, and 
not a ^person of the godhead." How can you say 
that any one is filled with a person? 

6. There is a remarkable passage in Isaiah, which 
corresponds with the above significations of the Holy 
Spirit in the New Testament "And there shall 
come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a 
branch shall grow out of his roots; and the Spirit of 
the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom 
and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, 
the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord J 7 
xi. 1, 2. This was spoken with a direct allusion to 
the Messiah, and represents the spirit of the Lord in 
him to be wisdom, power, and knowledge; — the same 
kind of spirit, which was miraculously communicated 
in different measures to the apostles, and many of the 
primitive christians. 

7. Another use of the phrase Holy Spirit is when 
it is personified, or denotes personal qualities. There 
are many instances in the sacred writings, in which 
the qualities of a person are attributed to abstract 
terms. The law is represented as speaking, and the 
scriptures as foreseeing and preaching; sin is spoken 
of as deceiving and killing, and of charity it is said 
that it "suffereth long, and is kind; it envieth not, 
vaunteth not itself, &c* In these several passages 



"Rom. iii. 19.— Gal. iii. 8.— Rom. vii. 15.— 1 Cor. xiii. 4. 



177 



the law, sin, scripture, and charity are personified. 
In the same way the Holy Spirit, or the supernatu- 
ral influence which it designates, is sometimes per- 
sonified. The following are examples. "For it is 
not ye that speak, but the spirit of your Father 
which speaketh in you." Matt. x. 20. "It is not ye 
that speak, but the Holy Spirit." Mark xiii. 11. 
"The Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour 
what ye ought to say." Luke xii. 12. Here the 
Spirit, or the divine influence, is said to speak, and 
teach, in the same manner as the law and the scrip- 
ture, in the places above mentioned, are said to speak 
and preach. 

8. The Holy Spirit is sometimes personified under 
the name of the comforter. "I will pray the Father, 
and he shall give you another comforter, that he may 
abide with you for ever, even the spirit of truth." 
John xiv. 16. "But the Comforter, which is the 
Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, 
be shall teach you all things." v. S5. It is to be ob- 
served in the first of these passages, that this- com- 
forter was to be given by the Father; and in the- 
qther, that it was to be sent by him. It is hence evi- 
dent, that if it were actually a person, it could not be 
the same (rod, being, or person, by whom it was 
given, or sent. It must be a derived, and inferior 
person, and therefore not the "eternal God," mention-, 
ed in the fifth article of the church. The Lord Jesus y 
in speaking to his disciples of his separation from 
them, says, <<lt is expedient for you, that I go away, 
for if I go not away, the comforter will not come unto 
you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you* — Ho w- 
beit when he, the spirit of truth is come, he will guide 



17S 



you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; 
but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.*' 
John, xvi 7, 13. From these texts it appears, that 
this comforter was inferior to Christ, for it was to he 
sent by him; and that it was not to speak of itself 
but only as it was instructed. Now this could not 
be true of God, nor of a person, which was equal with 
God. All those passages, in which personal quali- 
ties are attributed to the Holy Spirit, will be per- 
fectly unintelligible, if you consider the Spirit to be 
the "eternal God," or to have a substance, person, or 
being, the same as God. But if you explain them as 
you do other passages, which contain personifications 
of different attributes or qualities, the sense will be 
clear, and consistent with all the various uses of the 
phrase Holy Spirit in other parts of the scriptures. 

9. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs is a remark- 
able personification of wisdom. It may be doubted 
whether the whole scripture affords so strong evidence 
of the personality of the Holy Spirit, as this chapter 
gives of the personality of wisdom. "I, Wisdom, 
dwell with Prudence — I love them that love me — I 
was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or 
ever the earth was. When there were no depths, 
before the mountains were settled, before the hills, 
was I brought forth." viii. 13,17,23, 24,25. The 
whole chapter is spoken in the person of Wisdom, 
who is represented to have been with God from eter- 
nity, and to have aided him in the work of creation. 
Yet no one, I suppose, will argue that wisdom has a 
distinct personality, and has existed in this character 
from eternity. Why then should any one draw this 



179 



conclusion, from weaker evidence, in regard to the 
Holy Spirit? 

10. The reasons why the Holy Spirit cannot be 
considered as God, or a distinct being, person, or 
substance, may be expressed in few words, as fol- 
lows. It is no where in the scriptures called God, 
nor is it ever made an object of worship. Many 
things are attributed to it, which cannot be applied 
to a divine person, or to any person. It was given 
by measure, or in degrees; it was shed forth, poured 
out ; and given in double portions; persons were said 
to drink into it; it was quenched, and taken away; 
it could not speak of itself, except what it should 
hear; it did not know the Son or the Father, for 
Christ says, "no one knoweth the Son but the Fa- 
ther, neither knoweth any one the Father, save the 
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal 
him." Matt. xi. 27. But if the Holy Spirit had been 
of "one substance with the Father and Son," it would 
of itself have known them both. 

11. It may further be added, if Christ and the 
Holy Spirit be each of them "very and eternal God," 
then each must have the same properties, and be ca- 
pable of exercising them in the same way. What 
you can affirm of one, you can affirm of the other, as 
also of the Father. You might with as much pro- 
priety say, "the Holy Spirit shall send the Father oi 
Son," as that the Father or Son "shall send the 
Holy Spirit." As they are equal "in power and 
majesty," so their authority one over the other must 
be equal. 

12. It is the doctrine of the articles, also, that these 
three persons are actually one being, though I know 



180 



not bow such a thing can be conceived. Let it bft 
taken for granted, that such is the fact, and what will 
be the consequence? It will be, that all the actions, 
which are attributed to any one of them, may be at- 
tributed to either of the others. If the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Spirit be synonymous terms for the 
same being, these terms may in any place be substituted 
one for the other, in the same way as Lord, God, and 
Jehovah may be used promiscuously to signify the 
Supreme Being; and Jesus, Saviour, Redeemer, to 
signify the Son. By applying this rule in a few in- 
stances, we shall see to what results the doctrine of 
the trinity, as embraced by the church, will bring us. 

Horn. v. 10. "If when we were enemies, we were 
reconciled to God by the death of his Son. 93 Now if 
God and the Holy Spirit be each the same being as 
the Son, it will be strictly correct to substitute either 
of these names in the above passage. It will then 
read, "we were reconciled to God by the death of 
God;" or, "we were reconciled to God by the death 
of the Holy Spirit." 

1 John iv. 13. "Herein is love, not that we loved 
God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the 
propitiation for our sins." By substituting the sy- 
nonymous terms, this will read, "he sent the Holy 
Spirit, or he sent himself, or he sent God, to be a 
propitiation for our sins. 

Rom. viii. 34. "It is Christ that died." "It is 
God that died." "It is the Holy Spirit that died." 

These examples are sufficient. If we may believe 
the church, when it says, that Christ was "one per 
son, never to be divided," the same application may- 
be made to all the events of his life. When he says, 



181 



/, myself, me, you may substitute either of the nam^s 
God, or Holy Spirit. But if we believe what the 
church asserts in the same place, that this person, 
instead of never being divided, is actually separated 
into two parts, or "natures," then we must ascertain 
which nature it is that speaks, or acts, before we can 
make the substitution. / 

13. It is proper here to observe, that jihe Holy 
Spirit was not called God till more than three hun- 
dred years after the time of the apostles. "It was 
first decreed in the council of Constantinople, A. D. 
381, that the Holy Spirit was Lord, — neither did the 
ancients address prayers to the Holy Spirit; and they 
assigned this as their reason; viz. That a gift was 
not to be asked of a gift, but of the giver of the 
gift."* The following are the words of Erasmus, 
in his Annotations on the first epistle to the Co- 
rinthians. "No one of the ancients ventured plain- 
ly to assert, that the Holy Spirit was of the same 
substance with the Father and the Son, not even 
when the question concerning the Son was every 
where discussed with so much warmth. But now we 
scruple not to declare, that the Holy Spirit is of one 
substance with the Father and the Son, very Grod, of 
the Father very God, and of the Son very God." In 
his Preface to Hilary he states the same thing, and 
in the whole twelve books, which this latter author 
wrote on the trinity, he never mentions the Holy 
Spirit as God.f He wrote about the middle of the 

* Racovian Catechism, translated by Thomas Rees, p. 293, 
note by B. Wissowatius. 

t Hilary always speaks of the Holy Spirit as the gift of God, 
(donum Dei.) In one place he writes thus: "He commands ns to 



182 



fourth century. Ought we not to be a little surprised 
at finding a doctrine now insisted upon, as a funda- 
mental article of religion, which was not known in 
any church till nearly four hundred years after the 
time of our Saviour? 

V. Before I dismiss this part of the subject, I will 
add, in as few words as possible, two or three gene- 
ral arguments, which go to prove, that the prevailing 
sentiments during the time of our Saviour, and also 
the opinions of the early christians, were in accor- 
dance with what we have seen to be the plain sense 
of Scripture. 

baptise in the name of the Father, of the Sob, and of the Holy 
Spirit; that is, in the confession of the author, of the only begot- 
ten, and of the gift " &c. Baptizare jussit in nomine Patris, et 
Filii, et Spiritus Sancti; id est, in confessione et auctoris, et uni- 
geniti, et doni, &c. Ibid. p. 292. 

According to Gregory Nazianzen, when this subject first began 
to be agitated, three distinct opinions were prevalent. First* 
that the Holy Spirit was an operation; secondly, that it was a 
created substance; thirdly, that it was God. T<yv }e xetS* 

feQav, ol p,e v e ve pys tetv tovto (t« live vfioi) v7re AetCov, ol £e xTictfict, 

oi h 6eov. Orat. 37. Vid. Pearson's Notes, p. 387. 

The Jews held to the first of these opinions. They believed 
the Holy Spirit to be the energy or influence of God, and they 
supposed it was by this divine energy that the prophets were in- 
spired, Mairaonides, in giving the various significations of the 
Hebrew word spirit, says it sometimes means a "divine intellec- 
tual influence," and at others, "a purpose, or volition;" and when 
it is applied to the Deity, it partakes of both these significations. 
He thus describes its fifth and sixth significations. Quinto sig- 
nificat (n*n) influentiam illam intellectualem divinam a Deo pro- 
phetis instillatam, cujus virtute prophetant. Sexto significat pro- 
positum, et voluntatem. — Vox heec nil quando Deo attribuitur, 
ubique sumitur partim in quinta, partim in sexta significatiohe, 
quatenus voluntatem significat. Mor. Nevoch. c. 40, Ibid p. 591. 



183 



1. The Jews bad no conceptions of any three- 
fold distinction in the Deity. They had for many 
centuries been under the peculiar guidance of God, 
and received an express revelation from him in re- 
gard to the coming of the Messiah, but they seem 
never to have had the remotest suspicion, that this 
Messiah was to be God himself. All the predic- 
tions relating to the Messiah, both in the writings 
of Moses and the prophets, were such as could 
never lead them to suppose that they referred to the. 
God of Israel. Take for example the words of God, 
which were spoken by Moses. "I will raise them 
up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto 
thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he 
shall speak unto them all that I shall command him " 
Deut. xviii. 18. Is there any thing here ahout this 
prophet being the second person in the trinity; or 
about his being God, or equal to God? On the con- 
trary, is not the declaration express, that he was to 
be a prophet like Moses; that he was to be raised 
up, not by his own power, but by the power of God, 
and was to speak what God commanded him? 

The prophets allude to his sufferings and death in 
such a way as to render it impossible, that they 
should at the same time be speaking of God. The 
divine unity was a fundamental doctrine of the reli- 
gion of the Jews, and nothing probably has contri- 
buted so much to keep them from embracing the 
christian faifeh, as the idea, that the doctrine of the 
trinity makes an essential part of it. They cannot 
be persuaded to believe in any account of the Mes- 
siah, which involves a doctrine so inconsistent with 
their views of the whole tenor of the Old Testament. 



184 

Their aversion to this doctrine is so great, that, ac- 
cording to Buxtorf, they make the following article 
of belief a part of their daily devotions. "I believe 
with an entire faith, that God, the Creator, is one 
person, and that the unity, or oneness, which is in 
him, is not in any other." It is certainly remarkable, 
if such a doctrine as the trinity were contained in 
the Old Testament, that the Jews, for whom the 
whole book was especially designed, should never 
have found it out. 

2. It does not appear, that the companions of Jesus 
while he was upon earth, or the persons who saw, 
and conversed with him, believed him to be God. 
On one occasion, after he had healed a sick man in 
a miraculous manner, "The multitude marvelled, and 
glorified God, which had given such power unto 
men." Matt. ix. 8. It would seem from this pas- 
sage, that the people considered Christ as a man, and 
that he performed his miracles by a power, which 
he derived from God; as indeed he had already told 
them. 

The w ay in which Philip described Jesus to Na- 
thanael was as follows; "We have found him of 
whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did 
write, Jesus of ^Nazareth, the son of Joseph." John 
i. 45. From this language would it ever be sus- 
pected, that Philip thought him to be God? When 
Mary saw him, after the death of her brother Laza- 
rus, she said to him, "if thou hadst been here my 
brother had not died." Would she have spoken 
thus, if she had believed him to be the omnipresent 
God? The people are said in many places to have 
considered him a prophet. After he had miraciu 



185 



iously fed the five thousand, those present exclaimed, 
"This is of a truth that prophet that should come into 
the world." The woman of Samaria said to him, 
after his conversation with her, "I perceive thou art 
a prophet." When he asked his disciples, "Whom 
do men say, that I, the son of man, am," they replied, 
"Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, 
Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." 
Matt. xvi. 14. Here we have the prevailing opinions 
of the people respecting Jesus, and there is not the 
remotest hint, that any one considered him to be the 
most high God. So far from it, that they speak of 
him in no higher character, than that of one of the old 
prophets. 

3. It is further remarkable, if our Saviour had 
preached such a doctrine as that of the trinity, that 
the evangelists should not have stated it explicitly, 
and taken some pains to explain and enforce it. No 
doctrine could be more novel, none more important^ 
and none more opposed to the rooted prejudices of 
the Jews. But when we come to examine, we find 
nothing said, in the three first gospels, which can 
have any direct bearing on the subject, and the intro- 
duction to the gospel of John admits quite as good 
an interpretation according to the unitarian, as any 
trinitarian hypothesis. The strong evidence, which 
the four gospels contain, that no one in the time of 
our Saviour thought him to be God, and the entire 
silence of the evangelists on the subject of a trinity in 
any form, are objections to this scheme not easily to 
be answered, 

4. Another argument to the same effect is contain- 
ed in the preaching of the apostles, after the ascension 



186 



of Christ. We have a minute account of their preach- 
ing in the Acts of the Apostles. It is to be suppos 
ed, that in promulgating the christian religion among 
the heathen nations, the apostles preached all its im- 
portant doctrines. Yet he will read in vain, who 
shall expect to find any thing relating to a trinity in 
a single discourse of theirs, which has been recorded. 
They preached, that Jesus was the Christ, the son 
of God, and that God had raised him from the dead; 
but they never spoke of his being the "very and eter- 
nal God. v They never intimated, that God exists in 
a threefold nature, or in any other nature than that of 
the one true God. 

I will give two or three examples, which will show 
their manner of preaching in respect to the character 
of Christ. In Peter's sermon immediately after the 
descent of the Holy Spirit, on the day of pentecost, 
he thus addresses the audience; "Ye men of Israel, 
hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approv- 
ed of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and 
signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as 
ye yourselves also know." Acts ii. 22. Would any 
one infer from these words, that the apostle meant 
the people to consider Jesus the same as God, or 
equal to him? He not only makes him a distinct 
being, but declares that he performed miracles by 
the aid of God. The whole discourse of Peter is of 
the same import. He concludes by saying, "Let all 
the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath 
made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both 
Lord and Christ." v. 36. According to the trini- 
tarian scheme, Jesus, who was made Lord and 
Christ, was himself the same being by whom he was 



187 



made Lord and Christ. If Christ were actually the 
Supreme Being, it is very strange, that in this dis- 
course, the whole object of which was to explain his 
character, Peter should constantly represent him not 
only as distinct from the Father, but as subordinate 
to him. All he says of the Holy Spirit in this dis- 
course is, that it had been shed forth, and those who 
should be baptized "in the name of Christ," should 
"receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I presume 
no language could be more unlike the articles of the 
church, than that which is used in this place by the 
apostle. He does not call the Holy Spirit God, but 
a gift; and Jesus he calls a "man approved of 
God." 

Another striking example is found in Paul's dis- 
course to the Athenians. "As I passed by and be- 
held your devotions, I found an altar with this in* 
scription, to the unknown God. Whom therefore ye 
ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Acts 
xvii. 23. The first thing to be observed here, is, 
that the apostle was about to teach the Athenians the 
character of the true God. If he had supposed God 
to exist in three persons, he could not but make so 
remarkable a trait a very prominent part of his ex- 
planation. But how does he proceed? "God, that 
made the world, and all things therein, seeing thai 
he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in tern- 
pies made with hands." v. £4. He goes on iu the 
same kind of language through the whole discourse, 
uniformly speaking of God as one being, and never 
intimating that he exists in more than one person. 
After thus explaining to the Athenians the nature of 
the true God, he speaks of Christ at the conclusion. 



188 

as follows, "And the times of this ignorance God 
winked at; but now commandeth all men every where 
to repent; because he hath appointed a day in the 
which he will judge the world in righteousness by 
that man, whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath 
given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised 
him from the dead." v. 31. Could it enter the minds 
of the Athenians, that the God, whom the apostle had 
just mentioned as having made the world, was ac- 
tually the "man" by whom he would judge the world, 
and whom he had raised from the dead? They must 
have believed this, if they supposed from the apos- 
tle's account, that Jesus was one of three persons, 
which constituted the Deity. We may observe in ad- 
dition, that in giving this character of the true God, 
the apostle says nothing of the Holy Spirit. But if 
the Deity consists of three distinct persons, of which 
the Spirit is one, is it credible, that he would have 
passed over this remarkable fact in silence? 

I need not insist on this argument, drawn from the 
preaching of the apostles. Any one has only to read 
the book of Acts, with a particular view to the topics 
on which they dwelt, to be convinced, that they ad- 
hered most strictly to the precept of St. Paul in his 
first epistle to Timothy, 66 There is one God, and one 
mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
JesusP They never speak of a God in "three per- 
sons," nor use any language, which conveys ideas 
approaching to such a character of the Deity; and yet 
St. Paul does not hesitate to say to the Ephesians, 
"I have not shunned to declare unto you all the coun- 
sel of GodP Acts xx. S7» If the apostles could de- 
clare the whole counsel of God without once alluding 



189 



to a trinity, why should we think it important at this 
time to ingraft this doctrine into our faith, and make 
it a part of the christian religion? 

5. It is well ascertained from the best testimony, 
which can be derived from history, that the great 
mass of christians for the two first centuries were 
unitarian. This fact is generally admitted by all 
parties, so far as it regards the Nazarenes, or Jewish 
christians, and a portion also of the Gentile chris- 
tians. Although there is no direct authority in the 
written word of God for the doctrine of the trinity, 
especially in the form in which it is received by the 
episcopal church, yet if this doctrine could not be dis- 
tinctly traced to some later source, your argument of 
tradition might perhaps be thought to apply here, 
and we should be required to believe in the trinity, 
for the same reason that we are required to believe in 
the divine origin of episcopacy, and the traditional 
ceremonies of the Protestant Episcopal and Catholic 
churches, because we cannot go back to "any one pe- 
riod in which it could probably have originated." 
But fortunately we have not this difficulty to encoun- 
ter in the present instance. Few things in history 
are better settled, than the origin of the trinity. The 
close analogy between this doctrine and the philoso- 
phical speculations of Plato, leaves no room for mis- 
take. Many of the first converts to Christianity were 
Platonists, and they spared no pains in tracing out 
resemblances between the new religion, which they 
had embraced, and the philosophy to which they had 
become so strongly wedded while heathens. 

Plato had some obscure notions of three distinct 
principles in nature. These principles were, first, 
26 



190 



a Supreme Being, or chief Cause; secondly, a divine 
mind; thirdly, the soul of the universe. When the 
Piatonists became christians, finding some general 
analogy between this part of their philosophy, and 
the accounts given in the New Testament of the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Spirit, they gradually interwove 
with these many of the peculiar properties of the 
three Platonic principles, and by this unnatural com- 
bination, the doctrine of the trinity assumed by de- 
grees the shape in which it has appeared in later 
times, It does not come within my purpose to enter 
into the particulars of this history. It has often 
been done by able hands; and the result has been 
such as to convince any one, who will examine their 
inquiries with patience and impartiality, that the ori- 
gin of (he trinity can be traced to the Platonic phi- 
losophy, with as much precision, as any fact of those 
times, either political, civil, or ecclesiastical, can be 
established by the authority of history.* 

The principal points of controversy at first, had re- 
gard to the nature of Christ. It has already been 
seen, that the Holy Spirit was not elevated to the 
rank of a person in the trinity, till near the close of 

* The account which Le Clerc gives of the three Platonic 
principles is as follows. 

Plato autem dixit primum esse to ov, ctinov uttcuituv, Ens, 
Causaw omnium rerum; secundum vero Xoy V> Rationem et Recto- 
rem prcesentium et futurorum; tertium denique ^"Xt* xoc/uov, 
Animam, sive Spiritum mundi. Secundum quidem Principium a 
primo genitunif seu factum; tertium vero a secundo adfiruiat. 
Ars Critica, P. ii. § 1. c. 15. 

He observes further, that Parmenides was the first, who started 
the notion of three principles. Primus omnium tria principia 
constituit Parmenides. Ibid. 



191 



the fourth century. Several sects early sprung up 
in the first ages, who entertained various sentiineuts 
respecting the nature and character of Christ; but 
during the three first centuries, there is no trace of 
any doctrine, like that adopted by the episcopal 
church, in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
are considered to be three distinct persons of equal 
power and dignity. 

The Apostles' creed is a remarkable proof of this 
fact. Although it cannot be ascertained when this 
creed was first made, yet it is undoubtedly very an- 
cient. At whatever period it was formed, it must be 
supposed to have been intended to contain what were 
then considered all the important doctrines of the 
christian religion. It, nevertheless, gives no coun- 
tenance to a trinity, and contains very little, if any 
thing, on this subject, to which every unitarian will 
not assent.* 

I have reserved this opportunity to make some fur- 
ther remarks on your quotations from the epistles of 
Ignatius. Enough has already been said on the sus- 
picious character of these epistles to make it appear, 
that they are not entitled to the least degree of credit 

* Those, who wish to see the doctrine of the trinity traced by 
historical deductions to its true source, may find it done in a very 
concise and perspicuous manner in professor Norton's "State- 
ment of Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians 
respecting the nature of God, and the Person of Christ," written 
in reply to professor Stuart's Letters to Mr. Channing. p. 31. 

A more full account is also contained in the General Repos, 
and Rev. vol. iii. p. 15. Cud worth's Intellectual System, Book 
i. chap. 4. Priestley's Hist, of Early Opinions. And some re- 
marks may be found to the purpose in Le Clerc's Ars Critica, 
Pars Secunda, § 15. 



as authority in poiuts of controversy. Many epistles, 
which have gone out under the name of Ignatius, are 
universally acknowledged to be fictitious; and those, 
which are admitted by some to be genuine, are as 
universally allowed to be maugled and interpolated. 
And it is a well known fact, that many of the inter- 
polations, which have been detected, relate particu- 
larly to the trinity. 

I will quote two or three of those, which were de- 
tected by archbishop Usher. 

"Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, the Son of the 
living God." 

"One only begotten Son, the Word, God and 
Man." 

"God the Word dwelt in a human body."* 
Now whatever Ignatius may have written, it is 
certain he did not write these passages; although, if 
they had not been discovered to be spurious, they 
would now be defended with as much zeal as any 
other parts of his reputed 'writings. Whatever he 
wrote, these passages were added by some later 
hand. From these insertions two things are evident; 
first, that when they were made, these writings were 
not thought sufficiently strong in favour of the trini- 
ty; and secondly, that no confidence can be placed in 
any other passages of a similar character. If the 
original writings taught explicitly the doctrine of the 
trinity, why should these additions have been deem- 
ed necessarypf 

* Usher's edition of Ignatius' Epistles, Oxford, 1644, p. 42, 96, 
202; as quoted in Lind. Sequel, p. 446. 

T Speakiug of the seven epistles, Less, who believes them to be 
genuine, observes, "These are tolerably well purified from modern 



193 



Among the extracts, which you make from -Igna- 
tius, are the following. 

"Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God. ?? 
p. 40. 

"Follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Fa- 
ther." Ibid. 

It will be seen, by a single glance of the eye, how 
striking a resemblance there is between these quota- 
tions, and those above, which were proved by arch- 
bishop Usher to have been inserted by design; and 
there is the strongest presumptive evidence, that they 
all have a similar origin. You must allow me again to 
express my surprise, that you should quote passages 
of this character, which are so very important in their 
consequences, without at least intimating to your rea- 
ders, that they are of doubtful authority, and should 
be received with very great caution. 

interpolations. I say tolerably well, for even the smaller edition 
appears in certain places to be suspicious." Less on the New 
Testament, p. 71. 

Notwithstanding the suspicious character of these epistles, and 
the very great probability that they were written by some design- 
ing person to impose on the world, they are thought to be of so 
much account to the episcopal church, that they have lately been 
published in England as a tract for general circulation, by a 
"Society for the Distribution of Tracts," &c. and in this form they 
help to make up the book called "The Churchman Armed." See 
vol. i. p. 145. 

In this same book is inserted the learned treatise of bishop 
Burgess to prove, that "St. Paul was the founder of the church in 
Britain." Vol. ii. p. 316. "The church of Britain was established 
before the church of Rome." p. 389. 

But the church has hitherto been contending, that it has de- 
scended through the church of Rome. How is this point to be 
settled? Or how is it to be explained, that the church has been so 
long in an error? 



194 



I have thus finished the general view, which I 
proposed to take of the doctrine of the trinity, as 
contained in the articles of the church. I have at- 
tempted to compare it with reason, with scripture, 
and with itself; and on my mind the conviction is ir- 
resistible, that, as it is there stated, it is irrational, 
unsrriptural, and contradictory in its parts. Not 
only so, its origin may be traced to a period much 
later, than that of our Saviour, or his apostles. 
These things considered, I cannot persuade myself, 
that such a doctrine is to be received as in any man- 
ner connected with the pure, the consistent, and holy 
religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. 



Reverend and dear sir, 

It only remains in this letter to explain the 
texts of scripture, which you have adduced in proof 
of the "diviuity of the Saviour," and some others 
usually brought forward in support of the doctrine of 
the trinity. 

After reading the extracts from scripture, which 
are contained in the preceding letter, no one probably 
will deny, that the unitarian doctrine of the supe- 
riority of the Father, and the inferiority of the 8on 
and Holy Spirit is in some sense true. Trinitarians 
argue, that these texts are to be modified and explain- 
ed in accordance with others, which they think teach 
the deity of the Saviour and of the Holy Spirit, and 
their equality with the Father. On the contrary, 
unitarians hold, that the plain and obvious sense of 
the whole scriptures, both of the Old Testament and 
New, forcibly inculcates the unity and supremacy of 
God, and the inferiority of Christ; and also, that 
every text, which is thought to be favourable to the 
trinitarian hypothesis, may, by fair and rational 



196 



principles of interpretation, be explained in confor- 
mity with this clear and prevailing sense of scripture. 
They do not deny, that many passages are consistent 
with trinitarian views, but they maintain, that these 
are equally consistent, when properly understood, 
with the sentiments of unitarians; and they com- 
plain, that these passages have been forced into a 
meaning, in support of the trinity, contrary to the 
general tenor of scripture, the strongest dictates of 
the understanding, the express and repeated declara- 
tions of our Saviour, the preaching of the apostles, 
the sentiments of the whole Jewish nation, and of the 
primitive christians. They think there ought to be 
consistency in these things, and that no persons 
should attempt to support doctrines by scripture au- 
thority, which, from a full examination of the subject, 
it is well ascertained, were not known till more than 
two hundred years after the last book of the Bible 
was written. 

After humble, patient, and persevering inquiries 
into the scriptures, unitarians find nothing taught 
there, which is contrary to the numerous positive de- 
clarations of our Saviour; that he was inferior to the 
Father, sent by him, and derived all things from 
him; nothing inconsistent with the universal senti- 
ments of the Jews and primitive christians respecting 
the unity and supremacy of God; nothing in one part 
contradictory to the necessary sense of another; noth- 
ing, which violates reason, or opposes the decisions 
of the understanding. To them the whole appears, 
as they think every revelation from Grod must appear, 
rational, consistent, intelligible. They find many 
texts, which they believe it impossible to explain on 



197 



the trinitarian hypothesis, without violating every 
just principle of language; but none, which will not 
admit a fair interpretation in favour of the doctrine of 
the absolute unity. They do not profess to meet with 
no difficulties. In a book like the Bible, which has 
been transmitted through so many ages, it is impossi- 
ble, that these should not abound. But they find 
none, which, according to the unitarian hypothesis, 
may not be solved on rational principles; but many, 
which, according to the trinitarian scheme, are inex- 
plicable. 

It is a charge often brought against unitarians, 
that they think it their duty to consult their under- 
standing in forming their religious opinions. They 
think no one can be excused from exercising his 
reason, on a subject of the utmost moment and in- 
terest. They believe God did not make a revela- 
tion, which was not to be understood by his crea- 
tures, because no purpose could be answered by such 
a revelation. Reason is the ruling principle of de- 
cision and action in the common affairs of life; it 
gives laws to the will; the other faculties of the mind 
are all subordinate to this, and designed only as se- 
condaries and aids; and shall we forsake this guiding 
principle, when we come to study the scriptures, and 
search out the treasures of divine truth? If we aban- 
don this guide, we shall be left to the mercy of preju- 
dice, and the unlicensed control of our imagination, 
and shall act, in the momentous cause of religion, as 
we could never be induced to act in the most trivial 
concerns of life. 

When unitarians are charged with putting the de- 
cisions of reason in competition with the truths of re- 
27 



198 



velation, it is a false charge. Whatever they find 
revealed in the word of God, they receive most cor- 
dially and implicitly; but they regard it an impe- 
rious duty to use their best faculties in ascertaining 
what is, and what is not revealed. They place no 
reliance on the interpretations of fallible men, any 
farther than from their own inquiry they find them 
sanctioned in the scriptures. By what faculty of the 
mind are we to judge, if not by the understanding; 
or by what proofs are we to be convinced, if not by 
the results of our own deliberate investigations. 

Chillingworth speaks with great force and truth in 
repelling the same charge, as it was formerly made 
by the Catholics against the protestant churches. 
"Propose me any thing out of the Bible, and require 
whether I believe it or no, and seem it never so in- 
comprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it 
with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration 
can be stronger than this; God hath said so, there- 
fore it is true. In other things I will take no man's 
liberty of judgment from him; neither shall any man 
take mine from me. I will think no man the worae 
man, nor the worse Christian, I will love no man the 
less for differing in opinion from me. And what 
measure I mete to others, I expect from them agajn, 
I am fully assured, that God does not, and therefore 
that men ought not to require any more of man, than 
this; to believe the scripture to be God's word, to en- 
deavour to find the true sense of it, and to live ac- 
cording to it."* Every unitarian, it is believed, 
would subscribe to these sentiments "with hand and 

* Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salva- 
fton., chap. vi. Protectants not Heretics, sec. 56. 



199 



heart." Every one believes what the Bible contains, 
and for the same reason as Chillingworth, "because 
God hath said it." But since christians differ so 
widely respecting what is actually contained in the 
Bible, how can we give peace to our conscience, or 
be satisfied that we have the whole truth, unless we 
use our best faculties in conducting our inquiries, and 
forming our judgment? There has probably never 
been a unitarian, who rejected any doctrine or opin- 
ion, which others have thought to be in the scrip- 
tures, solely because this doctrine or opinion was not 
consonant to reason. 

If you tell me you believe a doctrine, which you 
acknowledge to be unintelligible and irrational, you 
must suppose such an acknowledgment will at least 
excite a suspicion, that you may be in a mistake. If 
you go on to tell me, that this doctrine is contained 
in scripture, I still shall not be able to believe it, till 
I have examined seriously and patiently for myself; 
because I cannot believe a proposition, till I am con- 
vinced by some course of reasoning, that it is true. If 
the scriptures are to be believed at all, it must be on 
the authority of reason; and, indeed, by what other 
authority can you determine the truth of any doctrine 
or opinion? And admitting you could believe a thing 
for which you could give no reason, what would be 
the value of such a faith? 

"When faith is virtue, reason makes it so." 

The truth is, all our religious opinions, which can 
be called such, are founded on reason, and to deny its 
use would be to reject our religion altogether. Why 
do we believe in the life, sufferings, and death of our 



200 



Saviour, or why do we believe, that the apostles hare 
given us a faithful account of his instructions, except 
from the conviction, which is produced by a rational 
investigation of the subject? 1 have heard preachers, 
in the commencement of a discourse, declaim vehe- 
mently against the use of reason in deciding on the 
articles of religious faith, and yet make the chief bur- 
den of what followed a series of arguments, to prove 
some of the principal tenets of their belief. 

Some effect is produced on the minds of the unin- 
formed by telling them, that unitarians "exalt reason 
above revelation." To any one, who is in the least 
degree acquainted with their writings, such a charge 
needs no refutation. If to search with patient and 
unwearied labour, with a pious and humble desire of 
knowing the truth, as it was revealed by Jesus Christ, 
and preached by the apostles; if to value the com- 
mands of God more than the commands of men, 
and to think it necessary to be convinced of a fact 
before it is believed; if to acknowledge the divine 
will as the only proper rule of conduct, to rest the 
hope of future safety wholly on the mercy of God, 
and to expect salvation on no other terms, than re- 
pentance, obedience, and a holy life; — if these be 
to exalt reason above revelation, few unitarians pro- 
bably will care to free themselves from the imputa- 
tion; if they be not, the charge is unfounded. 

We are told, that they have a habit of rejecting 
such doctrines, as they do not comprehend. This 
also is a mistake. They reject no doctrine for this 
reason ouly, because they do not comprehend it. No 
man, it is presumed, pretends to comprehend the at- 
tributes of God, or any of his works in their full ex 



20t 



tent. I cannot comprehend his existence, nor my 
own, nor the existence of any thing. I cannot com- 
prehend the structure of my own frame, nor of any 
organized substance in nature. Yet 1 believe these 
things, because they harmonize perfectly with my 
understanding, my conscience, and every principle of 
my mind. I discover nothing in them contradictory 
or impossible. I should believe in a miracle upon 
the same principle; not because I can comprehend 
it, but because my reason convinces me that Grod is a 
Being of infinite power, and may, if he choose, mani- 
fest his power in the working of a miracle. If I did 
not first use my reason, I could never be convinced, 
that it was not a deception. 

But it is one thing for a proposition or doctrine to 
be incomprehensible, and quite a different thing for it 
to be contradictory, or inconsistent with the plainest 
principles of the understanding, or with any known, 
positive truth. I do not believe, that one man will 
be punished for the sins which another has committed, 
nor that Grod has elected a certain number to ever- 
lasting life, and left the remainder of mankind to 
perish without remedy, — not because these doctrines 
are incomprehensible, but because they are inconsis- 
tent with the goodness and justice of God, which I 
consider established truths. I do not believe, that 
the earth is a plane surface, and stands still, aud that 
the sun revolves around it every day, — not because 
these tilings are incomprehensible, but because my 
reason has convinced me, that they are inconsistent 
with the experience of wise men, and the laws of na- 
ture. That a proposition is incomprehensible, there- 
fore, is no ground for rejecting it, and he must be very 



202 

much in the dark, and have no common share of ere 
dulity, who fancies, that any unitarian has on this 
ground disbelieved a single article of faith, which has 
been received by other christians. 

The doctrine of the trinity, perhaps, is as incom- 
prehensible as any thing; and yet I do not disbelieve 
this doctrine because I cannot comprehend it. I dis- 
believe it, first, because I can find no authority for it 
in scripture; secondly, because it is contradictory in 
itself; thirdly, because it is inconsistent with the moral 
attributes of God; and fourthly, because it violates all 
the rules of right reasoning by which in other cases, 
I am enabled to come at a knowledge of truth. 

Furthermore, unitarians arc charged with not believ- 
ing in mysteries. From this charge very few among 
them it is presumed would* desire to escape. Is not 
the christian religion a revelation from God, designed 
to enlighten, improve, and encourage his creatures, 
and is it credible, that such a revelation should con- 
tain mysteries, or dark and unintelligible doctrines? 
Did God commission his only Son to publish his will 
to men by miracles and wonders, and at the same 
time make his communications in such terms as they 
could not possibly understand, or eveu conceive? The 
very idea implies an impeachment against the good- 
ness of God, at which the mind revolts. The design 
of a revelation was to draw aside the veil of obscurity, 
and bring down a knowledge of the divine nature, the 
principles of duty, and the prospects of futurity to the 
capacities of men. But how is this design affected, if 
we are still involved in mystery? And what concep- 
tion, let me ask, can you form of a revealed mystery? 
What is a revelation, but something made known* 



£03 



which was before unknown. Whatever continues to 
be unknown, and cannot possibly be understood, has 
certainly never been revealed. If we hold, that our re? 
ljgion is mysterious and unintelligible, we make a 
very wrong use of language, when we call it a reve- 
lation; and if we believe it to be a revelation, we 
speak very inconsistently, when we say it is not to be 
understood. 

If we look into the sacred writings we shall not find, 
that our Saviour, or his apostles, ever spoke of any 
mysteries in their instructions, which their followers 
were not to understand. The word mystery is often 
used in the Bible, but never to signify a thing, which 
is unintelligible, or contradictory to reason. Some 
doctrines are said to have been mysterious before 
they were revealed; but there is no instance in which 
a revealed truth is called a mystery.* 

* The writers on the trinitarian side of the controversy, have 
dwelt with much apparent fondness on the propensity of unita 
rians to use their understanding in judging of religious subjects; 
and none, perhaps, has employed more words in discussing this 
topic, than Mr. William Burgh. A large portion of his long 
Reply to Mr. Lindsey's Apology, is occupied in proving, that 
there are many things incomprehensible. After having fully es- 
tablished this point, he lays it down as an axiom, that "About 
matters which we do not comprehend, it is obvious, that we can- 
not with certainty say any thing" p. 23. Does he mean, that we 
cannot say with certainty that grass grows, the sun shines, or 
that a man moves when he walks, because we cannot comprehend 
these operations? Such are the premises from which he draws the 
conclusion, that we cannot reason about the attributes and dis- 
pensations of the Deity. 

His words are, "The infinite and incomprehensible majesty of 
God is an object beyond the limits of reason; we are incapable of 
forming any idea of him" %>. 23, Can we form no idea, then, of 



204 



These introductory remarks have extended to a 
rather greater length, than I have been aware. We 
will now attend to the principal object of this letter, 
which is a consideration of certain texts of scripture, 
and especially those, which you have selected in proof 
of the divinity of Christ. As you profess to take these 
texts from Jones's work on the trinity, and as you call 
this "an inestimable work," and recommend it very 
highly to your readers, it will not be thought foreign 
to the purpose to say a few words on its character. 

It could not but excite a little astonishment to see 
a book quoted, as of the highest authority on this most 
important point of controversy, which scarcely a scho- 
lar or critic has before quoted with approbation, since 
the day it was written. That it should be a popular 
book among the uninformed, who take the author's 
results as truths, without being able to follow him 
through his show of criticism, is not wonderful; but 
that a scholar and biblical critic, who can detect his 
fallacies in every page, and perceive the cloud of pre- 

the power, the wisdom, and goodness of God? How can we wor- 
ship a being of whom we can form no idea? Or how can we talk 
of the benevolence, the mercy, the love of God, or indeed of any 
of his attributes, if they are totally beyond our conception? Do 
we not reason perpetually about the attributes of God? Do we not 
say, that one event indicates his wisdom, another his power, another 
his goodness; and do we not say, that the justice of God will 
award an adequate punishment to the guilt of a sinner? We 
do not comprehend these attributes fully; yet still, as far as we 
do comprehend them, we can reason about them, as well as about 
the innumerable operations of nature, which we do not compre- 
hend. The character of this book may be very easily imagined, 
when it is known, that the specimens here quoted are some of 
the author's first principles. 



205 



judice darkening and confounding every just princi- 
ple of criticism and interpretation, should publicly 
sanction and recommend a work of this character, is 
hardly to be accounted for by the usual mode of judg- 
ing of motives from actions. 

It is the way of this writer to bring together short 
passages selected at random from different parts of 
the scriptures, each of which contains some of the 
same, or similar words to the other, and to infer 
immediately that they mean the same thing. No re- 
gard is had to the context, nor does he seem ever to 
have dreamed, that the same word may mean very 
different things, when used in different connexions. 
In this way you may prove the trinity from the Koran, 
and show the Vedas of the Hindoos, the Talmuds and 
Targums of the Jews, to be treatises written in sup- 
port of orthodoxy. In short, you may prove any 
thing from any book. 

A few examples from the work in question will ex- 
hibit the grounds of these remarks. 

John iii. 29. "He that hath the bride is the bride- 
groom." 

Isaiah If v. 5. "Thy maker is thy husband, the Lord 
of Hosts is his name." 

From these two texts thus brought together, the 
author infers, that Christ is the Supreme God. 

John iii. 6. "That which is born of the Spirit." 

1 John v. 4. "Whatsoever is born of God." 

This is his first proof of the "divinity of the Holy 
Grhost." To prove "the trinity in unity" he quotes 
the following text. 

Psalm xxxiii. 6. "By the word of the Lord were 
the heavens made, and all the host of them by the 
28 



206 



breath of his mouth." On this text he remarks, "the 
whole trinity, therefore, created the world. 5 ' Another 
argument for the trinity in unity is drawn from the 
following collocation of texts. 

Rom. vii. 25. "I myself serve the law of God" 

Gal. vi. 2. "Fulfil the law of Christ" 

Rom. viii. 2. "The law of the spirit of life" 

Ry the same kind of reasoning might St. Paul he 
proved to be a person in the trinity, because he says, 

Rom. vii. S3. "The law of my mind." 

I will add only one example more. 

John vi. 45. "They shall be all taught of God." 

Gal. i. 12. "Neither was I taught it, but by the re- 
velation of Jesus Christ." 

John xiv. 26. "The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, 
will teach you all things." 

Because teaching is here predicated of God, of 
Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, it is supposed 
to follow, that these three are one and the same God. 
Upon this principle, why should not every person, 
who is said in the scriptures to teach, be considered 
as sustaining the same character? Paul and Barnabas 
('taught much people." Acts xi. 2&. Therefore, 
Paul and Barnabas constitute a part of the "trinity 
in unity."* 

* This paralogistic mode of reasoning appears to have been a 
very favourite one, with a certain class of writers. Mr. Burgh 
has adopted it throughout his book in very close imitation of 
Jones. 

In one part of the scriptures, mention is made of "the grace of 
Qod? and in another, of "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ," 
from which Mr. Burgh thinks it a logical inference, that "the god- 
head of the Father and the Son is the same.'* chap. iii. § 23. 



207 



These extracts give a fair specimen of the gene- 
ral character of Jones's work, so far as it regards his 
manner of reasoning. To say nothing of his unac- 
countable perversion, and numerous errors of criticism, 
what respect can we have for the candour or fairness 
of a writer, who descends on serious subjects to such 
a childish play upon words, as these specimens exhi- 
bit? Is it possible, that the cause of the trinity re- 
quires such a support? And above all, is this to be 

Again, Paul at one timt calls himself "a servant of God," and 
at another, "the servant of Jesus Christ;" therefore, Christ is the 
most high God. Sec. 35. 

The apostle speaks on a certain occasion of "ministering the 
gospel of God," and soon after adds, that he had "preached the 
gospel of Christ" It follows, according to this new species of 
biblical logic, that "Jesus Christ is one with the Father, God." 
Sec. 51. 

After these examples, and the extracts before made from this 
writer, it is scarcely necessary to add, that he acknowledged him* 
self to be "altogether unread in theological disputations " p. 221. 
It was most unfortunate, that his evil stars should lead him to 
write a book of two hundred and fifty pages, in defence of the 
trinity, if he was conscious of being thus ignorant of the subject. 

In reading such books as these of Jones and Burgh, one can- 
not but be forcibly reminded of bishop Newton's remarks in his 
Dissertation on the Difficulties of Scripture. He speaks of men, 
"who interpret scripture according to their opinions, and frame 
not their opinions according to scripture. They quote the scrip* 
ture, and one would think they understood at least what they 
quote; but alas, in their quotations they manifestly regard the 
bare words more than the meaning, and so there is but something 
apposite in the sound, no matter how remote it is in the significa- 
tion." See Nisbett's Messiah, p. IK 

Another writer, who is fond of interpreting the scriptures after 
the manner of Jones, is Dr. Nares of Bidclenden. See his Remarks 
on the Improved Version of the. New Testament, p. £21. 



208 



adopted as a true mode of interpreting the scrip- 
tures? 

But the doctrinal part of this book is not its worst 
part. The spirit and temper with which it is written, 
are as distant from the spirit and temper of Christ, as 
the doctrines it defends are contrary to the truths he 
taught. Let any one read the introduction, and the 
letter at the end of the book, and see how much he 
will find of the mild and gentle spirit inculcated in 
the gospel. Let him especially observe in what man- 
ner the writer constantly spe^s of Dr. Samuel 
Clarke, the friend of Newton, and one of the most 
able, learned, and pious men of the age in which he 
lived. In one place he charges him with professing 
to "believe in two different Gods;" and in another, 
after censuring him, with a sneer, for changing some 
of his religious opinions, he says, "and to put the 
best face he could upon his unbelief, he spent much 
of the remainder of his life in writing ambiguous com- 
ments, and finding various readings, that is, in pick- 
ing holes in the Bible."* Such is the work, which 
you seriously recommend to your readers, and to 
which you refer them for religious knovviedge.f 

The passages of scripture usually adduced in sup- 
port of the trinity I shall consider in the following 
order. 

I. Those in which Christ is called, or supposed to 
be called, (rod. 

* Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, New York, 1813, p. 169. 

f This is the work, which the editor of the American edition of 
Festivals and Fasts says, in his usual summary way, "has put the 
question, whether the doctrine of the trinity be revealed in scrip- 
ture, beyond all further controversy!" p. 224, 



209 



II. Those in which such properties are ascribed to 
bim, as it is thought could be ascribed only to God, 
or to a being equal to God; and some of those, which 
are believed to contain general proofs of the doctrine 
of the trinity. 

I. As Jesus is sometimes called God in the scrip- 
tures, it has been inferred, that he must be the Supreme 
Being. This might be an argument of some force, 
if it were not true, that the sacred writers often apply 
the same title to other persons. On examining the 
scriptures we shall discover, that it was not uncom- 
mon for those, who were eminent for their virtues, or 
dignity of station, to be called Gods. "And the 
Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made thee a God 
unto Pharaoh." Exod. vii. 1. "Thou shalt not revile 
the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." xxii. 
28. "For the Lord your God, is God of Gods." 
Deut. x. 17. "God standeth in the congregation of 
the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods." Ps. Ixxxii. 
1. "1 have said ye are Gods, v. 6. "Among the 
Gods, there is none like unto thee, O Lord." Ps. 
lxxxvi. 8. "Worship him, all ye Gods." xcvii. 7. 
The word God in all these passages means the pro- 
phets, the judges, or magistrates of Israel. The same 
word is sometimes rendered judges: as in Exodus 
xxi. 6. "Then his master shall bring him unto the 
judges," literally, "unto the Gods." In another 
place .the same word is translated angels. Psal. viii. 
5. "For thou hast made him a little lower than the 
angels," or "Gods."* From these texts, and from 

* The original word is CD^mSk* The passage is rendered by 
Jeroni, paulo minus a Deo; by Aquilla and Symmachus, p>z*>x v Tl 
7rct£ct, Qeov; and by the Seventy, /3£<*%v rt rocg' oc.yytXov$ t Vjd. 
Le Clerc, et Sept. Edit. Breit. in Loc. 



210 



many others, which might he added, it appears, that 
the title which is supposed to prove Jesus to have 
been the Supreme Being, was given to Moses, the 
judges and magistrates of Israel, and to angels, as 
well as to Christ. 

This use of the term exactly coincides with the 
words of our Saviour himself, when he says, "Is it 
not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods? If he 
called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, 
and the scripture cannot he broken,'' &c. John x. 34, 
35. This is a key to all the passages above cited, 
and to all others in which the word God is applied to 
any other person, than the Supreme Being. The 
word of God came to Moses, the prophets, the rulers 
of Israel, and in a greater or less degree to every 
good man. For being thus eminently favoured, they 
were sometimes called Gods. "With what remark- 
able propriety may this application be made to the 
Lord Jesus? What being has ever appeared among 
men, who was so highly endowed with every divine 
gift? To no one has the word of God come with so 
much power. Surely, if the prophets and wise men 
of old were called Gods by way of distinction, this 
title may be applied with vastly greater force and pro- 
priety to Christ, who was so highly exalted above 
them all. And yet, this is very far from proving him 
to be the Supreme Being, any more than the other 
persons, who were called gods for similar reasons. 

It is also to be observed, that none of the names of 
the Deity, except this one of God, are ever applied to 
Christ, or to any other person. He is never called 
the Supreme Being, the Most High, Jehovah, the 
Eternal God, the only True God, the living God, the 



211 

God of Gods, Holy God. If he were actually the 
Supreme God, is it not strange, that he should never 
have been called by any of these titles? But the truth 
is, whenever he is spoken of as God, it is in a sense, 
which he himself defined, when he said, "those are 
called Gods unto ivhom the word of God came" 

A prominent text, which you bring forward in 
proof of the supreme divinity of Christ, is the noted one 
in Isaiah ix. 6. "For unto us a child is born, unto us 
a son is given, and the government shall be upon his 
shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, 
Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, 
the Prince of Peace." Such are the words as you 
have quoted them, and as they stand in the common 
version of the Bible. But it was hardly to be ex- 
pected, that this text would be quoted at the present 
day, without a word of confment or explanation, to let 
it be known, that its most important parts are at least 
a very doubtful, and probably a false rendering of the 
original. 

The prophecy in this passage undoubtedly alludes 
to the Messiah, and consequently, the titles which it 
contains are to be applied to him. The only ques- 
tion is, whether the titles, or names, which were 
adopted by king James's translators, have the same 
meaning, as those, which were originally written by 
the prophet? This can be ascertained only by a cri- 
tical examination into the meaning of the original 
words, aided by a profound knowledge of the lan- 
guage in which they were written, and of the ancient 
translations. Such an examination has been repeat- 
edly made by the most learned men of different reli- 
gious sentiments, who have almost unanimously con- 



curred in a result, which proves the rendering of our 
common version to be more or less defective. Is it 
dealing fairly, therefore, with those, who have not 
the means of information, to represent this text, as of 
undoubted authority in its present literal reading? 
Should they not, at least, be told what they are to re- 
ceive with implicit confidence, and what with cau- 
tion? Is it justifiable thus to confound truth with 
error, and to give countenance to popular prejudice, 
by making the scriptures speak what their writers 
never intended? 

It is not denied, that commentators have found much 
difficulty in this text, on account of the ambiguity 
of some of the Hebrew words; yet they almost uni- 
versally agree in giving it a meaning different from 
the one retained in our English version. 

The application of the two first titles is sufficiently 
ohvious; and there seems to have been very little dif- 
ference of opinion about them, except that in the judg- 
ment of some critics they ought so to be united, and of 
others, to be taken separately. But whether they 
should be read Wonderful and Counsellor, or Won- 
derful Counsellor, is of little consequence in regard 
to the general meaning and application of the terms. 
Our Saviour might justly be called wonderful, in the 
astonishing works he performed; and a counsellor, or 
a wonderful counsellor, in the admirable system of 
religion he has published to the world; in its doc- 
trines, precepts, admonitions, directions, and pro- 
mises; giving evidence, that he was aided, instructed, 
and empowered from above. 

The next title, the Mighty God, is allowed to be 
a false translation, although there have been various 



2iS 



opinions in regard to the exact import of the original. 
Le Clerc, who was a trinitarian, and as profound a 
scholar in biblical learning, perhaps, as any other 
person, renders the passage thus; " Wonderful, I)i* 
vine Counsellor, Mighty" Christ was a divine 
counsellor in having derived all his counsels and 
precepts from God; he was mighty in the miracles he 
performed, and the divine powers he possessed.* 

The fourth title, Everlasting Father, is trans- 
lated by bishop Lowth, "the Father of the everlast- 

* The principal difficulty in this passage seems to have arisen 
from the doubtful meaning of the word which is sometimes 
rendered God, sometimes ruler, or magistrate, and is some-, 
times used in the sense of an adjective to denote excellence or 
distinction. Adhibetur de rebus magnis in stio genere eximiis, 
quae Hebraeis divinse dici solent, quasi earum vel prsestantia et 
magnitudo vel natura ad Deum solum auctorem referri posset, 
velut Stf c eiri divince, Stf HIH montes divini. Vid. Si- 
mon, in verb. 

This latter sense is preferred by Le Clerc. He unites the 
word w ^h y^f V consiliarius, vel consultor, and renders 
them consultor divinus, and gives as his reason, ut intelligatur 
Messias futurus consultor divinus, vel cujus divina essent consi- 
silia; hoc est prsecepta, ut revera sunt. This also agrees with 
what is said of him in Isaiah xi. 2. "The spirit of counsel and 
might shall rest upon him.'* 

There is much suspicion, that the word ^tf was not written in 
the original Hebrew, as there are no corresponding words in either 
of the ancient Greek versions of the Seventy, Acquila, Symma- 
chus, or Theodotian. Acquila renders the clause Qocvpctros, 
fiovXos, trxve.**, which Le Clerc approves, although he seems to 
think i<?%ve«<i was put for S$<. It is perhaps more probable, 
that it was intended to be the rendering of Vid. Clerici 

Comment, in Loc. 

w 



214 



ins; age," and by Grrotius, "Father of the future 
age," or "of the age to come." This was strict- 
ly appropriate to Christ. He was the founder of a 
new dispensation, and of a pure and holy religion. 
He was the head of the church, and came to bestow 
the means of salvation on mankind, and to confer in- 
estimable benefits, which should continue through all 
ages.* 

The application of the last title no one can mis- 
take. He was eminently the prince of peace in giv- 
irig a religion to the world, whose direct tendency 
is to promote peace among men* 

buch are the renderings, which the most able 
critics have given of this text. They are such as the 
original easily receives, and such as are peculiarly 
applicable to the character of Christ, as it was exhi- 
bited in his life and religion. The text, thus ex- 
plained, gives no support to the doctrine of the su- 

Grotius takes the words in a different combination, and trans- 
lates them Consulter of the Mighty God, (Consultator Dei Fortis,) 
or, as he explains it, one who in all things asked counsel of God. 
Although the Words may bear this construction, it does not seem 
to be so natural as the other. 

* The original words literally translated mean, Father 

of the Age. They are rendered by Le Clerc, Pater perpetuus, 
because, as he says, Christ is the perpetual or everlasting father 
of all, who shall believe in his religion. # 

Grotius translates them, Pater futuri seculi, and adds, Pater 
seculi est qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros, et in longum 
tempus. 'Ihh future age is the christian dispensation. Christ 
was the father of this dispensation, in as much as it was establish- 
ed through his instrumentality, by the exercise of such powers as 
were communicated to him by Jehovah, and also to his apostles in 
such a degree as to convince men of its truth and authority. Vid 
Grot. Annotat. in Vet. Test. Tom. ii. p. 13. 



215 



preme divinity of Christ, and contains nothing more 
than several titles and epithets prophetically applied 
to him, and expressive of the character, which he ac- 
tually sustained. The translation may be expressed 
in the following terms. "And his name shall be 
called Wonderful, Divine Counsellor, Mighty, Fa- 
ther of the age to come, Prince of Peace." These 
results are drawn, it must be remembered, from the 
critical expositions of trinitarians. 

Even admitting the received translation to be cor- 
rect, it does not prove Christ to be the Supreme God. 
We have already seen, that the title God w as often 
applied to other persons by way of distinction besides 
Christ, even to all to "whom the word of God came." 
It may certainly be given, therefore, with great pro- 
priety to him, who was appointed a special messenger 
of the counsels and will of Jehovah, and who is "ex- 
alted above all principality, and power, and might, 
and dominion." Hence, if the name be translated 
God, it cannot be accounted a proof of the supreme 
divinity of Christ. But I do not wish to vindicate 
this rendering, as the voice of criticism is deci- 
dedly against it.* 

* In this text the learned Dr. Owen found an argument for the 
hypostatic al union. "That the same person," says he, "should 
be the mighty God, and a child born, is neither conceivable, nor 
possible, nor can be true, but by the union of the divine and hu- 
man natures in the same person." Declaration of the Glorious 
Mystery of the Person of Christ, God and Man, p. 290, 298. 

This is the way men reason and build up doctrines, when, as 
bishop Newton says, "they regard the bare words more than the 
meaning." They attach meanings to words, which are inconce v« 
able and impossible, and then invent a scheme to make them con- 
ceivable, possible, and true. 



216 



Another text, which you cite, is John i. 1. "In 
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was (rod." 

Before we can have any just conceptions of the 
meaning of this text, or of the introduction to St. 
John's gospel, we must know in what sense he used 
the term Logos, or Word. This term has more than 
thirty distinct significations in the New Testament, 
and it is obvious, that we cannot interpret any pas- 
sage in which it is contained, without first fixing its 
meaning as it is used in that place. We cannot un- 
derstand language, if we do not know the meaning of 
the words of which it is composed. 

The best mode, perhaps, of ascertaining in what 
sense the evangelist used the word, is to inquire for 
what purpose he wrote his gospel. He tells us, that 
one of his principal designs in writing was to prove, 
that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God." 
From this declaration, the opinion would seem to have 
prevailed in those times, that Jesus was not the 
Christ; and from many passages in St. John's gos- 
pel we are led to believe, that it was a special pur- 
pose with him to correct this and other errors, re- 
specting the nature and person of Christ. If we can 
ascertain what these errors were, and also what con- 
nexion they had with the prevalent doctrine of the 
Logos, we shall have some clue to the true interpre- 
tation of this passage. 

The Platonic philosophy was at this time very pre- 
valent in" those countries, where the christian religion 
was preached. It was the doctrine of this philoso- 
phy, that the Supreme Being did not create the 
world, but assigned this work to a siibordinate be- 



217 



mg, wbom the Platonist9 called Logos. Philo, and 
the Alexandrian Jews, who embraced this philosophy, 
perceiving some analogy between this use of the term, 
and those passages of the Old Testament, in which 
the Word, or Logos, is personified, fell easily into the 
belief, that the term there used denoted some being. 
Personal properties are often attributed in the Old 
Testament to the word of God. "By the word of the 
Lord were the heavens made/* 7 The Word of the 
Lord is said to come, to speak, to go. "His Word 
runneth very swiftly." It was hence inferred, that 
the Word of God, so often mentioned in the Old Tes- 
tament, was a being distinct from God, and the same 
as the Logos of Plato.* 

* Before St. John wrote his gospel, Philo had written largely 
on the Platonic philosophy. As he was a Jew, and well versed 
in the philosophy of the east, he seems to have combined some of 
the peculiarities of these two systems. He has a great deal to 
say about the Logos, and what is particularly worthy of observa- 
tion, he personifies it under different characters, and applies it 
sometimes to men, sometimes to angels, and at others to God 
himself. 

Eum (Aoyay) ye Aov Philo nominat. Vid. Kuinoel. Pro- 

legomera ad Evang. Iohan, § 7; De Xoyu Iohannis. Philo omnes 
Dei oratores, et legatos vocare solet Aoyevs. Rosenmull. Schol. 
in Johan. chap. i. v. 1. 

As it was common in the time of St. John to personify the Lo- 
gos, and apply it as a name to persons or beings sustaining dif- 
ferent characters, he did not depart from the customary use of 
language in employing the word after a similar manner. 

There are many instances of this personification in the gospels 
and epistles. "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, 
hath one that judgeth him; the word (Logos) which I have spoken, 
the same shall judge him in the last day." John xii. 48. Here 
the Logos is made a judge* "The Logos of God is quick and 



218 

Another opinion somewhat analogous to this, in 
many respects, had its origin in the Oriental philoso- 
phy. Those who embraced this system were called 
Gnostics, They maintained, that there was but one 
Supreme Mind, but from this was derived, by a sort 
of emanation, a vast number of subordinate intelli- 
gences, or iEons, of various orders. To one of these 
beings they gave the name of Logos.* 

Out of these notions sprung up many errors in re- 
gard to the nature and character of Christ. The 
Gentile converts, who were generally Platonists, de- 
lighted in discovering resemblances between their 
philosophy and the christian religion, and among 
others they fancied Christ to be an intermediate being, 
and the same as their Logos. 

powerful," or more properly, "alive and active." Heb. iv. 12. 
"The word (Logos) which God sent unto the children of Fsrael, 
'preaching peace by Jesus Christ; he (this Logos) is lord over 
all." Acts x. 36. Here the Logos is said to preach, and to be 
lord over all. In all these places Logos evidently means the 
gospel, or the christian doctrine; but still, it is represented as a 
person. For other examples, and a comparison between the use 
of the word by Philo, and the writers of the New Testament, see 
Jones's Ecclesiastical Researches, chap. vi. 

* There are also strong evidences, in many parts of St. John's 
gospel, drawn from other circumstances besides what he says of 
the Logos, that he often had in view the Gnostics. He uses many 
of the terms, which had become technical in their philosophy, and 
probably to correct the errors, to which they had given currency 
by an improper use of them. Among these terms are Fiovoyevy?, 
X*e.i<s, £ft"5, ^*»«, *M0f tu y vrXve up.** Kuinoel. Prolegom. §5. De 
Con^ilio Johanni in scribendis Comment, proposito. There 
can be little doubt, that in some places at least, he used the 
words Light and Life with this application. Jones's Ecclesiastical 
Researches, chap, xviii. 



219 



For a similar reason the Gnostics believed Christ 
to be one of the highest orders of jEons; and, as it 
was a doctrine of this sect, that matter was the source 
of evil, they rejected the humanity of Christ, alleging 
that no pure intelligence, like him, could possibly be 
confined in so unworthy and contaminating a habita- 
tion as a corporeal body. They maintained, that his 
visible body was a phantom, and that he died and 
arose from the dead only in appearance. 

The errors of the Cerinthians, a sect of consider- 
able note in the first century, seem to have taken their 
rise in these false notions of the Logos, and of inter- 
mediate beings. They taught, that Christ, and Jesus, 
were two distinct beings, or persons. They suppos- 
ed Christ to be an iEon, or emanation from the Su- 
preme Being, who descended upon Jesus in the form 
of a dove at the time of his baptism. Before this 
union, they supposed Jesus to have been nothing 
more than a common man. When he was taken to 
be crucified, the divine being, called Christ, left him, 
and the man Jesus only died, and rose from the 
dead.* 

Such were the opinions concerning the Logos, and 
such the errors which were growing out of them at 
the time when St. John wrote. To one or other 
of these philosophical sects, it must be remembered, 
almost all the early christian converts belonged be- 
fore their conversion. The apostle must, therefore, 
have considered it a matter of the utmost importance 
to purify a fountain, which threatened to contaminate 

* Vid. Irensei»adv. H?eres. lib. iii. c. 12. ut cit. in Kuinoel. Pro- 
legoin. § 5. 



220 



and poison the whole scheme of christian doctrine. If 
this system were pursued, Christianity was likely to 
become ingrafted into the wildest systems of heathen- 
ism. The root of the difficulty lay in the ideal and 
false notions, which prevailed respecting the personal 
existence of the Logos, acting in the character of an 
intermediate being, distinct from God and from men. 
There can be little doubt, that the principal purpose of 
St. John, in what he has said of the Logos, was to 
remove this difficulty, and to clear up a subject, which 
the unnatural mixture of heathen philosophy with 
Christianity had tended to perplex and obscure. 

If we keep these things in mind, it will not be diffi- 
cult to perceive what he designed to teach in his doc- 
trine of the Logos. We may not be able to give an 
exact definition of the term, as it was understood by 
him, because it may have been used to express ideas of 
the Deity, some of which have since passed away with 
the controversies of those times; yet we can hardly 
mistake its general application, or the object of the 
writer. He would show, that the Logos is not a 
'person, or being, and yet it is something, which is 
with God, and which may be called God. It follows, 
that it must designate some quality, or qualities of the 
Deity, which have always resided in him, by which 
he has created all things, and by which he still mani- 
fests himself in his works, — such qualities, in short, 
as make him the Supreme God. It is not of so 
much importance what name we give to these quali- 
ties, if we only retain a correct idea of their nature. 
Perhaps we shall not deviate far from the true signi- 
fication of the word Logos, as used by the evangelist, 



22i 



if we suppose it to denote the power of the Deity 
acting under the guidance of his wisdom. 

With this signification of the term, the interpreta- 
tion of the first part of John's gospel is natural and 
easy. In the beginning was the Logos, and the 
Logos was with God; that is, the power of God, 
aided in its operations by divine wisdom, has been 
with God from the beginning, or always. It is not 
a being, which emanated from the Deity, and which 
exists in a state separate from him. And the Logos 
was God; the qualities of the Deity denoted by the 
Logos are essential to his character as God, and not 
to be considered as constituting any other being. The 
same was in the beginning with God. Ml things 
were made by him; and ivithout him ivas not any 
thing made that ivas made. By the power and wis- 
dom of God was every thing created, and without the 
exercise of this power, and the guidance of this wis- 
dom, was not any thing originally made. This was 
probably said in allusion to the doctrine of the Pla- 
tonists, who believed the creation to have been the 
work of a subordinate agent. 

It thus appears, that this passage, instead of prov- 
ing Christ to be the same as God, or a person equal 
to God, was actually intended to show, that there 
was no such intermediate being, as was designated 
by the different sects of that period under the name 
Logos. The work of creation, which they assigned 
to this imaginary being, had no other origin than the 
power and wisdom of God. When this position was 
established, the errors of the Platonists and Gnos- 
tics, in regard to the character of Christ, would fall of 
course, because they were built on the supposition of 
30 



the personal existence of the Logos. When the evan- 
gelist says, near the close of his gospel, that he has 
written to prove, "that Jesus is the Christ," he ob- 
viously alludes to the sect of Cerinthians, by whom 
this was denied. 

It is to be observed, also, that if in this passage he 
intended to declare Christ to be God, it is very 
strange that he should say one object of his writing 
was. to prove him to be the Son of God. Moreover, if 
by the Logos here we are to understand the person of 
Christ, how could it be said to be from the beginning 
with God, and to be God, unless there were from the 
beginning two distinct Deities, and that these two 
were one? No mode of explanation, which makes the 
Logos a person existing from eternity, can be free, 
from this inconsistency and contradiction.* 

Luke i. 16, 17. "And many of the children of 
Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God; and he 
shall go before him in the spirit and power of 
Elias." 

It is said, that by "the Lord their God" in this 
place is meant Christ; but there is nothing in the pas- 
sage itself, nor in any part of the message of the an- 
gel to Zacharias, from which such an inference can 
with any propriety be made. To go before God 

* For a lucid and comprehensive view of this subject, see pro- 
fessor Norton's Statement of Reasons, &c. p. 55. Kuinoel, in his 
Prolegomena to the gospel of St. John, brings together the various 
opinions, which have been entertained concerning the Logos, and 
the design of the evangelist in writing his gospel. Priestley's 
Hist, of Early Opinions, vol. i. and ii. Book. % chap. i. Lindsey's 
Sequel, p. 129. Clerici Adnotationes in Johan. cap. i. 



means to walk in his presence, or his sight, and 
is a common phraseology in the New Testament.* 

John xx. 28. "And Thomas answered and said 
unto him, my Lord, and my God." There have been 
different opinions on this text. Some have supposed 
that Thomas meant to address Christ as the Supreme 
God; others, that his language was only an exclama- 
tion expressing his surprise on finding that Christ 
had in reality risen from the dead, which, a short 
time before, he had declared he could not believe. It 
is thought by others, that the address was made di- 
rectly to Christ, but not in the character of the Su- 
preme Being. In the midst of his surprise at the won- 
derful event, which had happened, and of the reality 
of which he was convinced by the sudden appearance 
of Christ, Thomas addressed him in the exclamation 
contained in the text. He was his Lord and his God, 
in the same sense as the Jewish magistrates were 

* The phrase evantov Qeov often occurs, and it almost univer- 
sally means in the presence of God, or in the sight of God. "For 
he shall be great (f v*>7rtcv €>eov) in the sight of the Lord." Luke 
i. 15. The most prominent signification of 7rgoeg%oftcit is to ad- 
vance, to proceed, (vid. Heder. in voc.) and it is used in this sense, 
Matth. xxvi. 39. Mark xiv. 35. Acts xii. 10. Wakefield renders 
the passage, "And he will lead the way in the sight of God." 

It was not the office of John to turn men to Christ, but to God, 
whose counsels and laws they had forsaken; and to prepare them 
for receiving the religion, which he was about to communicate 
through his Son. "They greatly err," says Wolzogen, "who sup- 
pose John was to turn the people to Christ, and hence infer, that 
he is the Supreme God. They could not be turned to Christ, be- 
cause they had not forsaken or receded from him; but it was im- 
portant that they should be turned to God, that they might be the 
better prepared to have faith in Christ " Vid. Wolzog. Comment , 
in Loc. Opera, Tom.i.p. 525, 



Lords and (rods over those, whom they instructed 
and governed; and in the same sense which Peter 
would convey, when he said to the Jews, "Grod hath 
made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both 
Lord and Christ.* 

Slichtingius has well observed, that the great sur- 
prise manifested by Thomas on this occasion, instead 
of affording any proof of the general belief of the 
apostles in the proper deity of Christ, is a strong ar- 
gument to the contrary. Had Thomas believed 
Christ to be God, it could give him no surprise to 
know, that he had risen from the dead. He must 
have supposed that all things were possible with 
him, and when he was convinced of the remarkable 
fact of his resurrection, he could feel no astonish* 
ment. 

It has been remarked by Grotius, bishop Pearce, 
and others, that this is the only instance in which 
Christ is addressed by any of his disciples under the* 

* This last mode of interpretation is adopted by Slichtingius, 
Crellius, Kuinoel, and Rosenmuller. See their Commentaries on 
this text. Dr. Carpenter gives a similar explanation, and considers 
Thomas as expressing his conviction of the divine authority of 
Jesus, which he had before doubted. Carpenter's View, &c. p. 
149. 

Dr. Kenrick thinks the words of Thomas were only an excla- 
mation, "the efFeet of sudden surprise and astonishment, to find 
the person, whom he felt and handled, to be raised from the dead." 
Exposition, vol. ii. p. 610. This was the opinion of Wolzogen, 
Dr. Lardner, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Lindsey, and also of archbishop 
Newcome, if we may judge from his note on the passage in his 
Translation of the New Testament. 

Bishop Pearce paraphrases it, "I own thee now to be Jesus the 
Christ, and as such my Lord and my God.'? Comment, in loc. 



225 

title of God. In this fact, every one should see k 
strong presumptive argument, that Thomas in this 
place did not intend to address him as the eternal 
God; especially, since the words will receive, without 
force to the language, an interpretation perfectly 
consistent with every other part of the scriptures. 
If the disciples believed Christ to be God, why had 
they never called him so before, when they saw his 
miracles and astonishing works, which could only be 
done by a divine agency? 

Acts xx. 28. "Take heed, therefore, unto your- 
selves, and to all the flock over which the Holy 
Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of 
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." 

This text was formerly considered very strong in 
favour of the deity of Christ, but it seems now to be 
very generally given up by all learned trinitarians. 
No question remains, that the present rendering, 
church of God, is incorrect. Kuinoel says, "the true 
reading, beyond all doubt, is church of the Lord, and 
this has been adopted by Grotius, Wetsten, Le Clerc, 
Griesbach, and all the most skilful critics of the pre- 
sent age."* Some manuscripts read Christ, bufe 
there is much the highest authority for Lord. The 
idea of the blood of God is so shocking, that every 
one must feel gratified, that the received translation 
of this text, the only one in scripture in which such 
an idea is advanced, should be found to be so en- 
tirely without foundation. \ 

* Comment, in Act. Apostol. p. 679. 

t After the most laborious researches, Griesbach says, the read- 
ing of is not supported by a single ancient or valuable manu'- 



Horn. ix. 5, Whose are the fathers, and of whom, 
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, 
God blessed for ever." 

These words admit of different interpretations 
by varying the punctuation. They may be point- 
ed as follows; "of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
Christ came, who is over all. God be blessed 
for ever." Christ is over all things by the appoint- 
ment of the Father, as it is expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 
27* "He hath put all things under his feet. But 
when he saith, all things are put under him, it is 
manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things 
under him." This text is a decisive proof, that what- 
ever dignity Christ possessed by the appointment of 

script; and concludes, Quse omnia cum ita sint, non possumus 
cseteris lectionibus non prseferre xv% <«v. See the note to this text 
in his second edition.— -Also Le Clerc's Ars Crit. vol. ii. p. 93, et 
Adnot. in loc— Vera lectio videtur esse rav xvgiov. Rosenmul* 
in loc. — Morus, after a comparison of various authorities, comes to 
the same conclusion, although he loses no opportunity in other 
places to support the deity of Christ. Vid. Mori Versionem et 
Explicationem Act. Apost. p. 515. — Even Dr. Nares admits the 
same, although with no apparent good will. Remarks on the Im- 
proved Version of the New Testament, second edit. p. 220. 

Bishop Pearce adopts the same reading in his commentary on 
this passage, and archbishop Newcome has received it into his 
text. 

It is remarkable enough, that modern trinitarians have defend- 
ed, as part of scripture, a form of language, which Athanasius 
himself condemned as an invention of the Arians. "Our scrip- 
tures," says he, "no where mention the blood of God. Such dar- 
ing expressions belong only to Arians." Ovfrufiov h tup* Geov 
jtetfl' Tragec^e^aticcriv ctl ygxpect, Agetavuv r» rotctvrcc toA- 

piy/Liarx. Athanas. cont. Apollin. apud Wetsten. in loc. Bel- 
dam's Calm Inquiry, second edit. p. 141. 



227 

the Father, it is very far from making him equal to 
God. 

Others prefer a different punctuation, and trans- 
late the passage as follows; "He, who is over all, 
God, be blessed for ever," or "God, who is over all, 
be blessed for ever." This is the translation of Mr. 
Locke.* Either of these renderings is admissible, 
and when it is understood, that the original was writ- 
ten without any punctuation, it will be seen, that no 
improper liberty is taken in making this conform to 
what is conceived to be the general sense of the pas- 
sage. This is the only rule, in fact, which can be 
followed. 

If Christ were intended to be called God in this 
place, there is one reason in the passage itself, why 
the title cannot denote the Supreme God. He is spo- 
ken of as having descended from the Jews according 
to the flesh, and in this character, even according to 
the trinitarian hypothesis, he certainly could not be 
considered God the Father. 

The apostle is here enumerating the privileges of 
the Jews, one of which was, that they were descend- 
ed from the patriarchs, and another, that the Messiah 
had arisen in their nation. For these privileges, 
by which, through divine favour, they had been so 
remarkably distinguished, God, the author of all, was 
to be blessed for ever.f 

* See Locke's Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. 
Paul, p. 372. Wetsten inclines to the same interpretation. Vid. 
in loc. 

t Dr. Taylor supposes the whole to relate to the privileges of the 
Jews, and as it was one of their greatest privileges, that God was 



228 



1 Tim. iii. 16. "Arid without controversy great is 
the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the 
flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached 
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received 
up into glory." 

Instead of God in this text, a great number of manu- 
scripts of the highest authority read he who, and se- 
veral others of less value read which. According to 
this last reading the sense will be, great is the mys- 
tery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh. 
This is preferred by many trinitariau writers, as well 
as others. 

But since the learned and laborious researches of 
Griesbach, the second reading has been the most ge- 
nerally adopted by critics. After patiently examin- 
ing and comparing all the manuscripts and authorities, 
which are considered of any value, he says, that those 
laws of criticism, which have been established by the 
common consent of the most learned critics, require 
the reading in this place to be who, or he who.* In 
conformity with this result he has inserted it into his 
text; and although archbishop Newcome does not in- 

peculiarly their God, he prefers the following translation; "Whose 
are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, 
whose is the God over all blessed for ever." Note in loc. The 
connexion and sense here are extremely natural, and although 
this translation is founded on the conjectural emendation of 
Slichtingius, (wv o for o <yv) it is by no means impossible, that it 
may be the true one. Vid. Slicht. Comment, in loc. Mr. Jones 
agrees with Dr. Taylor. See Analysis of the Epistles to the Ro- 
mans, p. 134. 

* Postulabant enim hoc leges criticse — quas doctissimi critiei 
suo assensu comprobarunt. Vid. Not. in loc, edit.secund. 



229 



troduce it into his translation, he has placed it in the 
margin.* 

Thus corrected, the passage may be explained as 
follows; Great is the mystery of godliness. He, ivlw 
was manifest in the flesh; that is, who dwelt among 
men, humbled himself, and submitted to the suffer- 
ings incident to human life; — was justified by the spi- 
rit;^ was vindicated in declaring himself to be the 
Messiah sent from God, by the gifts of the Holy 
Spirit, which he possessed in so high a degree, and 
which w ere conferred so abundantly on many of his 
followers; — was seen of angels, or messengers;! 

* "M the old versions," says Dr. Clarke, (Doct. of Trin. No. 88., 
89,) "have ivlw or which* And all the ancient fathers, though the, 
copies of many of them have it now in the text itself God; 
yet from the tenor of their comments upon it, and from their 
never citing it in the Arian controversy, it appears that they al- 
ways read it Is, who, or o, which" See Improv. Vers, fourth edi- 
tion, note. 

tRosenmuIler has remarked, that spirit here may signify the- 
christian doctrine, as in other places. In this case it would mean, 
that the nature of this doctrine, and its success among men, jus- 
tify Christ in professing himself to be the Son of God._RosenmuI.. 
in loc. et Schleusn. in verb. Trvevp. 17. 

The proper rendering is &*/,and notiii the spirit, as the context 
plainly indicates. By a Hebraism, ev is put for <5\# per* Vor- 
stius de Hebrais. cap. xiv. § 4. 

X The same word, which is here rendered angels, is often trans- 
lated messengers, which is evidently its meaning in this place. 
John the Baptist is called an angel or messenger. Luke vii. 27. 
"Behold, I send my messenger (*yyfAov y,ov, my angel,) before 
thy face." ix. 52. Jesus "sent messengers (rfyyeAau*, angels) be- 
• fore his face; and they went and entered into a city of Samaria to 
make ready for him." On this part of the text, Macknight re- 
marks as follows, — "Was seen of angels, that is, of the apostles, 
Bi 



330 



of those persons, who were to he the messengers of 
his gospel, and to bear witness to the truth of his re- 
surrection; — was 'preached to the Gentiles; his reli- 
gion was promulgated among all nations, Gentiles as 
well as Jews; — was believed on in the world; his doc- 
trine was embraced, and he was believed to be the 
Messiah; — was received up in glory; his ascension 
was marked with circumstances of glory.* 

The sense of the text will be the same, if the pre- 
sent reading be retained, provided the word God be 
considered a title of Christ in a sense, in which we 
have already seen it is frequently us^d. But if you 
suppose this title to denote the Supreme Being, it will 
be impossible to give any consistent or rational ex- 
planation of the passage. How can the eternal God, 
who is every where present, be said to reside in a hu- 
man body? The being, who is here mentioned, had 
been raised from the dead; but how can such lan- 
guage be applied to the living God, "who only hath 
immortality?" How could the Almighty Father, "who 
dwelleth in light inaccessible," be "received up in 
glory?" Such are the inconsistences of this text, if 
you attempt to interpret it on the supposition, that the 
being of whom it speaks is the Supreme God. And 
since those authorities, by which we determine the 
true reading of any part of scripture, do not warrant 

and of the other witnesses, who were appointed to publish and 
testify his resurrection to the world " Aliis ocyyeXoi hoc loco sunt 
apostoli; illis enim Christus in vitam redux seepius apparuit, ut 
essent testes resurrectionis. Rosenmul. 

* The original is «v ^«|*, in, or with glory. Receptus est in 
gloria, id est cum gloria, seu gloriose, per HebraismUm in pro 
cum posito. Crellii Comment. Tom. ii. p. 19. 



231 

such a supposition, and the sense of the text is deci- 
dedly against it, why should it be admitted? 

Heb. i. 8. "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne 
O God, is for ever and ever." 

This is a quotation from the Psalms, (Ps. xlv. 6.) 
in which place it is supposed by many to have been 
applied by the Psalmist to Solomon. Such was the 
opinion of archbishop Newcome. But of whatever 
person it may have been spoken in the Psalms, it is 
evidently quoted here iu reference to Christ, and we 
are told by Wetsten, that it was generally under- 
stood by the Jews to relate to the Messiah. Yet the 
Jews never expected their Messiah to be the Su- 
preme God, and it is evident, that the apostle does 
not intend to signify, by this quotation, the nature of 
Christ, but the dignity of his office. For in the very 
next verse he speaks of God, as a distinct being from 
Christ. "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated 
iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed 
thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." If 
we apply the first part of the quotation to Christ, we 
must apply this likewise. But here he is said to 
have been anointed by his God; and he could not 
himself be the same God by whom he was anointed. 
If he is intended, therefore, in this text to be called 
God, it must be in an inferior sense; unless there are 
two Gods, and these two are one. 

It has been further observed by Grotius, Erasmus, 
Clarke, and others, that both the Hebrew and Greek 
of this passage will admit a different translation. 
The grammatical construction of both these languages 
would seem to require it to be rendered as follows; 
"But concerning the Son he saith, God is thy throne 



£32 

jor ever and ever;** that is. God is the support of thy 
kingdom. This explanation, perhaps, is preferable 
to the other, but it cannot with any consistency be 
argued from either of them, that Christ is the eternal 
God.* 

£ Peter, i. 1. "Through the righteousness of God, 
and our Saviour Jesus Christ." 

You do not quote this text from the Bible, but from 
Jones on the trinity, and according to the following 
arrangement, namely, "Through the righteousness of 
our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." You have not 
told your readers, why you choose to deviate thus 
from the English translation. Although in the ori- 
ginal there is an ambiguity in a few texts similar to 
this, and some room for doubt respecting the position 
and force of the Greek article; yet in the present in- 
stance there seems to be no possibility of being misled. 
The words which follow are so explicit, as not to ad- 
mit of any uncertainty in the interpretation. "Grace 
and peace be multiplied unto you, through the know- 
ledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord." v. %. Are not 
God and the Saviour spoken of here as two distinct 
beings? And why should we desire to force the 
words of the first verse into a meaning, which is in 
direct contradiction to the plain sense of the se- 
cond? 

It is no part of my design to enter into the tangled 
controversy about the Greek article. If the doctrine 

* "But concerning the Son," (?rf c; rov lav.) Lindsey's Seq. p. 
?i)r. "But of the Son." Wakefield. See also Viger De Gnec. Diet, 
Idiotismis, c. ix. § 8, De Prsep. x^o?. 

O 6*ovcf crop o ©?,, 5 ?/; r ,jv xiava, rov ctiavo$, Septuag. 



233 



of the trinity, or of the unity, be suspended by so 
slender a thread as this, we may as well let it break 
at once, as attempt to strengthen it. To write books 
about the construction of one or two Greek letters, in 
half a dozen texts of the New Testament, and to 
marshal out arguments from this construction in sup- 
port of the proper deity of Christ, must show a la- 
mentable want of evidence from more certain and 
more valuable sources. Such a course could never 
have been taken, except as a last resort. When we 
recollect, especially, how innumerable have been the 
blunders and omissions of transcribers, both accidental 
and designed, and how likely these would be to occur 
in the use of the article, we cannot but wonder, that 
men should waste their time, and torture their inven- 
tion, in building up arguments of materials so sha- 
dowy and fragile. The inquiry, as a branch of cri- 
ticism, is not without value. Its results may serve to 
illustrate points of minor consideration, and aid in 
settling correct principles of criticism; but when au 
important doctrine of christiau faith is propped up by 
them, it may indeed be said to have a feeble sup- 
port. 

It is furthermore undeniable, that every passage, in 
which the construction of the article is supposed to 
be an argument in favour of the trinity, is in the ori- 
ginal ambiguous. Without deviating from grammati- 
cal strictness, it will admit of a different interpreta- 
tion. Take for example Tit. ii. 13. "The glorious 
appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus 
Christ." It stands thus in our common version, but 
it is not denied, that the grammatical construction will 
allow it to be rendered in the following manner; "the 



23* 



glorious appearing of our great God, and Saviour 
Jesus Christ." In several texts there is a similar 
ambiguity. But after all, there is no dauger of mis- 
taking the sense. It may justly be doubted, whether 
in a single passage of this description, grammatically 
rendered, any person, who had not been biassed by 
previous impressions, could be led for a moment to 
suspect from them, that Jesus and God are one and 
the same being. It would never occur to him, that 
the two names were not intended to represent two 
beings. Every just rule of interpretation would re- 
quire us to explain such ambiguous passages, accord- 
ing to the plain sense of other parts of scripture; and 
since we are told in terms, which do not admit of but 
one meaning, that there is one Lord, and one God 
und Father of all, and that this God is the God of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, we do great violence to the 
scriptures when we make ambiguous phrases speak a 
contrary language, and attempt to show, that our 
Lord Jesus Christ is himself the same being, whom he 
expressly calls his God* 

1 John v. 20. "And we know tbat the Son of God 
is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we 
may know him, that is true; and we are in him, that 
is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the 
true God, and eternal life." 

It has been said, that the last clause of this text 
refers to Jesus Christ, and that he is here called the 

* For an able reply to Mr. Granville Sharp's Remarks on the 
Greek Article, see the Rev. Calvin Winstanley's Vindication of 
certain Passages in the common English Version of the New Tes- 
tament; first American edition, printed at Cambridge, 1819, with 
an Appendix containing Remarks on Dr. Middleton-s Treatise. 



235 



true God. But such a conclusion must be drawn 
from an extremely superficial view of the text itself. 
Christ is here characterized as the son of the true 
God, and until it can be made out, that the Father 
and the Son are the same individual being, no words 
can more clearly express a distinction between them 
than these. Compare this text with another, in which 
is contained a similar construction. "For many de- 
ceivers are entered into the world, who confess not 
that Jesus is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver 
and an antichrist." S. John, ver. 7« The same rule 
of interpretation, which, in the former text, will 
make Jesus to be the true God, will here make him 
to be "a deceiver and an antichrist." But if you 
allow the last clause in each to refer to the remote, 
and not the immediate antecedent, the mean ins; will 
be obvious. The true God is he "that is true," that 
is, God the Father, and not "his Son Jesus Christ;" 
in the same way as the deceiver is he, who does "not 
confess, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." In- 
stead of containing any thing favourable to the opin- 
ion, that Christ is the Supreme God, this text is ac- 
tually an argument to the contrary, as it speaks of 
them as two distinct beings, calling one "the true. 
God," and the other "the Son of God."^ 

* In the criticism of Slichtingius on this text, he says, "It is 
wonderful, that christians should acknowledge the true God, 
mentioned in this place, to be God the Father, and at the same 
time be so inconsistent as to insist, that the pronoun this refers to 
Jesus Christ, the Son of the true God. More especially, since wc 
know, that John has again and again distinguished Jesus Christ 
from the true God, as emphatically as he could distinguish a sun 
from his father. These christians say, that this true God is at the 



236 



1 have thus considered all the texts, in which it is 
generally supposed Christ is called God. I have said 
nothing of Matt. i. 23, because the name Emanuel 
in this text is now usually allowed to be nothing 
more, than a prophetic title, expressive of the char- 
acter, and not of the nature of Christ. This name 
was given by the prophet iu conformity with the He- 
brew custom of giving names. JLdonijah means, my 
Lord is Jehovah; Elihu, my God himself; Elijah, 
God the Lord. There is no more reason for infer- 
ring, that Christ was the eternal God, because Eman- 
uel, the name by which the prophet said he should 
be called, means God with Us, than there is for be- 
lieving Elijah to have been the eternal God, because 
his name means God the Lord. This title was ex- 
pressive of the character of Christ, as in him God was 
manifest on earth in a remarkable manner by his wis- 
dom and power. 

same time both Father and Son. But since God can be only one, 
it follows, if he is both Father and Son, that he is Father of him- 
self, and Son of himself. They deny this consequence, and say, 
that although the true God can be only one, yet he consists of a 
plurality of persons, one of which is the Father, and the other the 
Son. They, who say these things, manifestly 'contradict them- 
selves, and it would be in vain to dispute with persons, who have 
so little regard for the first principles of the understanding. I 
would sooner pray God to give them a sound mind, than attempt to 
dispute with them." Slichting. Comment. Tom. ii. p. 417. 

A part of the text might be more correctly rendered in the fol- 
lowing words, "We are in him, that is tvue,throngh his Son Jesus 
Christ." Particula in ponitur pro per, Slicht. — Ev pro fix. 
Viger. De Idiotismis, p. 610. For a similar use of this preposition, 
see Rom. x. 8, 9. Eph. iii. 21. Coll. i. 16. 

For other examples in which the relative is not referred to the 
nearest antecedent, see Act. vii. 19. x. 6. 2 Thess. ii. 8, 9. 



237 



I have not mentioned 1 John iii. 16, because the 
words, of God, are added by the translators. I would 
only remark on this text, that it shows with what 
prepossessions king James's translators engaged in 
their important undertaking, aad the necessity of re- 
ceiving their translation with great caution in any case 
of doubt or difficulty. They have here added a word, 
which gives a totally different meaning to the text, 
and have acknowledged, by putting it in italics, that 
it is not authorized by the original. If they were so 
much warped by system and previous opinions, as to 
deviate so glaringly from the original in one instance, 
we cannot be surprised to find a similar tendency in 
many others.* 

In examining these texts we find there is not one, 
in which it is absolutely certain, that the title God is 
applied to Christ. And it may be said, without fear 
of contradiction, that in whatever sense this title is 
used, it is never so connected with Christ, as to war- 
rant the inference, by any just principles of interpre- 
tation, that he is the Supreme God. And it is wor- 
thy of remark, that several of the most learned and enii* 
nent trinitarians have given such explanations to the 
texts here considered, as are conformable to the uni- 
tarian interpretation. 

Is it not a little singular, that almost every text, in 
which it is supposed Christ is directly called (rod, 
should be of so doubtful a character? Does it not give 

* The word ®eov,of God, is not admitted into the text either 
by Mill, Wetsten, Bengel, or Griesbach. It is found in one 
manuscript only, in the Complut. edit, and Vulgate, Vid, Wet* 
sten and Griesbach, 

33 



£38 

ioom for suspicion, that these texts, in their present 
form, are by no means the purest in the scriptures? 
How should it happen, that those passages, which 
are thought to be the strongest in favour of the trini- 
ty, have actually the least certainty in regard to their 
original construction, and are the least definite in their 
meaning of any others in the whole Bible? There is 
one mode, and only one, of explaining this fact. The 
texts themselves have been mutilated and deformed 
by being pressed, from time to time, into a service for 
which they were not originally qualified. But there 
is enough of their primitive simplicity still left, to 
enable us to detect their factitious and unnatural 
parts, and to discover a meaning in them honourable 
to God, and to the Saviour, and conformable to the 
plain sense of scripture. 

11. I am next to consider some of the leading pas- 
sages, in which such properties or powers are ascrib- 
ed to Christ, as it is thought could be ascribed only to 
God, or to a being equal to God; and also some others, 
which are believed to contain general proofs of the 
doctrine of the trinity. 

John x. 30. "I and my Father are one." 
In another place our Lord explains in what sense 
he is to be understood, as being one with the Father. 
In a prayer for his disciples, he says, "Holy Father, 
keep, through thine own name, those whom thou hast 
given me, that they may be one, as we are. Neither 
pray I for these alone, but for them also, which shall 
believe on me through their word; that they all may 
be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that 
they also may be one in us; that the world may be- 
lieve that thou hast sent me. And the glory, which 



thou gavest me, I have given them, that they may be 
one, even as we are one," John xvii. 11, SO. After 
reading these texts, it is not possible to mistake his 
meaning when he said, "I and my Father are one." 
They were one, as he and his disciples were one, and 
as all christians are one. They were united in counsel, 
and purpose, and acted in concert. Christ did "what 
he saw the Father do." If this text prove Christ to 
be God, the others prove the same of his disciples.* 

Philip, ii. 6. "Who, being in the form of God, 
thought it not robbery to be equal with God." 

Before we seek for an explanation of this text, it is 
necessary to know the object of the apostle, in writ- 
ing the passage from which it is taken. If we ex- 
amine the preceding and following verses, we shall 
learn, that he is enjoining on the Philippians the vir- 
tue of humility, and to make his injunctions the more 
effectual, he reminds them of the example of Christ. 
It is obvious, therefore, that the text must have a 
sense, which is in conformity with this object, and 
which is indicative of the humility, and not of the 
exaltation of Christ. 

This text most trinitarians think a decided proof of 
the deity of Christ. But if this opinion were correct, 
what force or meaning would there be in the apostle's 
language? Christ is mentioned here as an example of 

* It has been observed, that the original is not I/?, one person, 
but lv, one thing. Hence Calvin says, "The ancients abused this 
text in attempting to prove from it, that Christ is of the same es- 
sence (opoovsi av) with the Father, for Christ is not speaking of a 
unity of substance, but of a union, by virtue of which, whatsoever 
he did would be confirmed by the Father.'* Abusi sunt hoc lorn 
veteres, &c. Vid. Wolzogen. Oper. Tom. i. p. 9£2. 



240 

humility, and apparently for no other purpose. But 
was it any evidence of humility in him to ''think it not 
robbery to be equal with God?" The entire inconsis- 
tency of these words with the context, should point 
out at once the necessity of some better translation. 
As they stand, they destroy the propriety of the apos- 
tle's reference to the example of Christ, and render 
the whole passage inapplicable to the purpose for 
which it was evidently intended.. 

What are we to understand, in the first place, by 
the form of God? Most trinitarians suppose it to be 
the divine nature, and as it is applied to Christ, they 
consider it a declaration, that he is possessed of this 
nature, and is essentially God. But it is well-known; 
that the word which is translated form, very seldom 
means, in the original, the nature or essence of a thing, 
but only its external appearance, figure, or properties. 
Besides, if being in the form of God is a proof that 
Christ was actually God, then his being in the form 
of a servant, or slave, is a proof, that he was actual- 
ly a servant, or slave, which we know is not true. 
Any evidence contained in the phrase, jform of ' God, is 
as strong in favour of one of these positions, as the 
other.* 

Hence this must apply not to the nature, but to the 
condition and qualifications of Christ. The form of 
God, in which he appeared, was the manifestation of 

* Hammond says fco^n is used by good authors pro interna 
ipsa rerum essentia vet forma; but Le Clerc prefers the interpre- 
tation of Grotius, and quotes Hesychius, Suidas, Phavorinus and 
others to prove, that it relates to the external figure or appear- 
ance, and is synonymous with sixav, et^os, . vgosoTpts. Ham- 
mond. Adnot. — Mfl^i) denotat aliquid quod in occulos incurrit, 
adoque de Deo proprie dici non potest. Wetsten. 



841 



divine power and wisdom in the miracles he wrought, 
the instructions he communicated, and in all the evi- 
dences he gave of the divinity of his mission. 

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God. It is 
agreed by almost all critics, trinitarian as well as 
unitaria n, that the words, equal with God, may be trans- 
lated with the strictest conformity to grammatical con- 
struction, as, or like God. The phrase is thus trans- 
lated by archbishop Newcome, and Dr. Macknight. 
Allowing the common version to be admissible, this is 
thought preferable; because, if Christ be equal with 
God, there must be two Gods equal in power and ma- 
jesty, which is contrary to scripture and reason.* 

Thought it not robbery; that is, he did not consider 
this resemblance to God as plunder, or a thing which 
he had taken by force. He looked upon it as a free 
gift, conferred by the good pleasure of God. In this 
consisted his humility. He did not exalt himself, or 
boast of those possessions and high endowments, which 
raised him to a likeness with God, as if he had obl- 
tained them by his own exertions, but was humble 
in his station, unassuming in his deportment, and 
submitted patiently to many indignities, without any 
ostentatious display of those powers, by which he 
might have secured the admiration, the respect and 
obedience of the world. f 

* Wetsten renders ir*. 0^, ut Deus, like God; and in this he 
is followed by Macknight, who observes, that Whitby "has prov- 
ed in the clearest manner, that to-a, is used adverbially by the lxx, 
to express likeness, but not equality" See Macknight on this 
place. Instar Dei. Rosenmul. et Slichi 

t There is some difficulty in ascertaining the precise meaning 
of oce,ir*vt*os, because it is not used in any other place in the New 
Testament, and probably is not to be found in more than one or 



242 



With this meaning, which is strictly conformable 
to the original, the text fills up the place in which it 
stands, and preserves harmony in the whole passage. 

Collos. ii. 9. "For in him dwelieth all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily." 

The word Godhead means the same as Deity, or 
God. What is meant by the fulness of God we can 
ascertain, by comparing this passage with others. In 
the preceding chapter the apostle says, "For it pleas- 
ed the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell." 
This fulness, then, was something, which he had re- 
ceived from the Father, and consequently was not any- 

two instances any where else. It may mean the act of seizing 
upon any thing for plunder, or booty; or it may mean the thing 
seized, the plunder, or booty itself. That is-, it may be used in 
an active or passive sense. The latter is generally thought pre- 
ferable. It may signify, vel rem raptam, vet rem avide diripien- 
dam, et vindicandam. Schleusn. in voc. — Wetsten takes it in this 
sense, and gives as one reason, Christus nunquam harpagare cu- 
ravit, nunquam aliquid ab aliquo violenter rapuit. See also 
Wakefield's Silva Critica, Sect, cxlii. For a more full explana- 
tion of this text, see Belsham's Calm Inquiry, second edit. p. 82. 
Cappe's Critical Remarks, vol. i. p. 228.$ 

Professor Stuart translates this text as follows; "Who being in 
the condition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an 
object of solicitous desire." He gives as a reason why he ren- 
ders At.e£pjj, condition, that this word is sometimes used by meto- 
nymy, according to Schleusner, for <pv$is, or ovo-tct, nature, or es- 
sence, But to be in the nature of God, is the same thing as to be 
God himself. That this cannot be the meaning of the word in the 
text, is evident, because it is immediately after said, "he made 
himself of no reputation," literally, "emptied himself," zttvrov 
sxevwe, or divested himself of whatever it was, that made him in 
the form of God, which he could not do, if he were God, or in the 
nature of God. The idea advanced by professor Stuart, th at God 
might so "veil the brightness of his glories," or so yield up a part 
of his perfections, as to be said to "empty himself" ef them, and 



243 

thing, which he possessed as an independent and self- 
existent being. In writing to the Ephesians the apos- 
tle expressed a desire, "that they might be filled with 
all the fulness of God," Eph. iii. 19. If we consider 
it an evidence, that Christ was God, because the ful- 
ness of God dwelt in him, why should not the same 
inference be drawn in regard to the Ephesians? 

Thz fulness of God means the abundance of the di- 
vine wisdom, gifts, and blessings, conferred by him. 
The apostle prayed, that these might be multiplied to 
the Ephesians. In Christ they dwelt bodily, that is, 
really, truly, substantially, inasmuch as he was en- 
dowed with them in a most eminent degree.* 

still retain his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience un- 
impaired, is one, which few persons, probably, will find sufficiently 
intelligible to be understood. Nor does he inform us why he 
chooses, contrary to the opinion of the ablest critics, to render 
i tree ©£&>, by the phrase, equality with God; nor has he attempted 
to explain how one being could be said to have equality with ano- 
ther, if one were in the same condition, or nature as the other; or, 
which is the same thing, if both beings constituted the same being. 

But there is something further, connected with professor Stuart's 
explanation of this text, which will probably appear not a little 
strange to most unitarians. He speaks of a version as being com- 
mon among them, which he cites in the following words, namely,. 
"He did not think of the robbery of being equal with God." Let- 
ters, p. 95. Where he found this translation is not easy to say* 
but it is certain, if he had taken pains to f consult many unitarian 
expositors, he would never have fallen into so great a mistake, as 
to think it common among them. After a tolerable acquaintance. 
With most of the unitarian critical expositors, 1 have never seen 
this translation in any other place, than professor Stuart's Letters. 
There are very few unitarians, it is presumed, who will not agree in 
the results of his laboured criticism to show, that it does not ac- 
cord with the original. 

* Macknight thinks this text has some allusion to the philoso- 



24* 



Trinitarians argue, that certain texts of scripture 
assign to Christ the attributes of the Deity, and hence 
they infer, that he is God. It has been seen in the pre- 
ceding letter, that he asserted, in as positive language 
as could be used, that he possessed these attributes in 
a limited degree. Did he speak contradictions? Shall 
we not rather say, that texts of less obvious import 
are to be interpreted by those, whose meaning it is im- 
possible not to perceive? Shall we say his knowledge 
was infinite, when he expressly asserts, that he did 
"not know the day," in which his prophecy would 
come to pass? Shall we say his power was infinite^ 
when he declares repeatedly, that "he could do nothing 
of himself," and that he received all power from the 
Father? Yet, notwithstanding these assertions, tri- 
nitarians insist, that he was omniscient, omnipotent, 
and omnipresent. 

To prove his omniscience they quote Matt. xi. 27. 
"All things are delivered unto me of my father; and 
no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither know- 
eth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom- 
soever the Son will reveal him." It is unaccountable, 
that this text should be cited to prove that Christ has 
infinite knowledge in himself, when it is said in so 

phical notions of the time in which it was written. The phrase 
7FX7j^aft,oc Geov, fulness of God, was common among the different 
sects of philosophers. The Gnostics supposed this fulness to be 
made up of iEons; the Jews, of angels; and the heathens, of in- 
ferior deities. By saying that this fulness dwells in Christ bo- 
dily, the apostle would imply, "that the philosophy, which repre- 
sents angels as greater in power and knowledge than Christ, is 
false." Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iii. p. 517. 

EapctTixas, bodily, really t truly. Schleus. in voc. Potest hac 
voce signari non corpus, sed essentia, Hammond. Adnot. 



245 



many words, that 66 all things are delivered unto him of 
the Father." Whoever attends to the context will find 
all things here to relate to the gospel dispensation; but 
to whatever this phrase may relate, it is used in refer- 
ence to a knowledge, which Christ did not possess of 
himself, but which he had received from the Father. 

John ii. 24. "He knew all men; and needed not 
that any should testify of man; for he knew what was 
in man ." 

The same divine wisdom, by which he was aided 
in teaching so perfect a religion to mankind, enabled 
him also, as a necessary prerequisite, to have a most 
intimate knowledge of human nature. Whence he de- 
rivel this knowledge, he tells us in another place; for 
he sajs, "My Father hath taught me," and also, "My 
doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." He con- 
sequently received this knowledge of men from the 
Father. Let such, as do not believe this knowledge 
to have be^n derived, answer the question, how a be- 
ing, who already possessed infinite knowledge, could 
be taught? 

John xxi. i/. "Lord, thou knowest all things." — 
So also it is $aid in another place of christians in gen- 
eral. 1 Joh*i ii. 20. "Ye have an unction from the 
Holy On^, and ye know all things J 9 It is evident, 
therefore, if from this text you infer the omniscience 
of the Lord Jesus, you must from others infer the 
same of all christians. 

The omnipotence of Christ is supposed to be prov- 
ed from Phil. iii. 21. "Who shall change our vile 
body, that it shall be fashioned like unto his gloriouf 
body, according to the working whereby he is able 
even to subdue all things unto himself." Does this 
33 



£46 



text imply any power which could not be derived? 
We are told in another part of scripture, % Cor. iv. 14. 
"that he which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise 
us up also by Jesus." 

Hence, whatever change shall be produced in us 
by the Lord Jesus, be can only act by the same power 
by which he was raised. And in regard to his "sub- 
duing all things unto himself," "it is manifest that he 
is excepted, which did put all things under him." 1 
Cor. xv. 37. 

One short declaration of Christ, it should seem, ought 
to be enougn to stop any further inquiry into the ori 
gin of his power. He has said, "I can of mine ojon 
self do nothing " Why then should we go aboit to 
prove a directly contrary position, that he can yhim* 
self do many things? Suppose he had power jo create 
worlds; how small a portion of omnipotencewould be 
such <a power. "He hatlj authority to execute judg- 
ment;" but does he possess this authority n himself? 
No; "the father hath given it to him." Johi v. 27. He 
is "to be the judge of the quick and the Jead." By 
his own authority? No; he has been ordained of God 
to this office. Acts x. 42. In almost e\ery instance, 
where uncommon power is ascribed to Christ, it is 
mentioned as coming from the Father. Ant it may be 
stated with confidence, that in all the texts of scripture, 
in which Christ is represented as possessing a high de- 
gree of power or knowledge, these possessions are ei- 
ther referred immediately to God, as a distinct being 
from Christ, or may be considered as proceeding from 
him, without any violation of the natural construction, 
and obvious meaning of the language. 
Jesus is supposed to be omnipresent, because he 



247 



told his disciples, "where two or three are gathered 
together iu my name, there am I in the midst of them." 
Matt, xviii. 20. "And, lo, I am with you alway, even 
unto the end of the world." xxviii. 20. The presence of 
Christ mentioned here, cannot be his personal presence, 
because we know he ascended up into heaven. He 
promises that wherever his followers, shall be gather- 
ed together in his name, or for religious purposes, their 
prayers and services shall be accompanied with all the 
good effects, which could flow from them, if he were 
present, or which his religion is calculated to produce. 
He was with his disciples in the miraculous powers 
wiich they possessed, "till the end of the world/' that 
is, ill the end of the age 9 or of the Jewish polity. 
Duriig this period he aided them by the comforter, 
which had promised. This was the apostolic age, 
after whrh, miracles and supernatural powers ceased. 
But if yoi take these texts in their most extended li* 
eral sens*, a sense in which they are received by 
very few critics, the most you can infer from them is, 
that Christ has the power of knowing, of aiding by his 
influences, aid of conferring blessings on his followers. 
This is very Mr from proving him to be present through- 
out the univ rs-\* 

*The en? of the world means, for the most part, in the gospels, 
le end f the Jewish dispensation. Bishop Pearce explains the 
reseat passage thus; "J am with you always, that is, to assist 
os in teaching all nations all things, and by enabling you to work, 
miracles in confirmation of your doctrine;— even unto the end of 
the world, that is, to the end of the age, or the end of the Jewish 
age." He further says, in his commentaries on Matt, xxi v. 3, "The 
end of the age, that is, of the age in which the Jewish church and 
state were to last" This is also the rendering of archbishop New- 
come. The vulgate has it, usque ad consummationem sascuii ~ 
See also Kenrick's Exposition. 



248 



Eternal existence is also said to belong to Christ. 
John viii. 58. "Before Abraham was I am." This 
text is quoted by trinitarians, but for what reason it is 
not easy to perceive, for Christ might have existed be- 
fore Abraham, and still not have existed from eterni- 
ty. So far as eternal existence is concer ned, therefore, 
or equality of the son with the Father, it proves no : 
thing. 

Col. i. 17. "He is before all things." This un- 
doubtedly means, that he is exalted above all other 
beings; he is superior in dignity and excellence to all 
things. If you suppose the text to have reference t> 
time, it will afford no proof that he existed from etr- 
nity; but only that he was the first created being. He 
is called the "first-born of every creature," whicf. is an 
evidence, that he was a created being, and mist have 
derived his existence from God. 

Heb. xiii. 8. "Jesus Christ, the same T esterday, 
to day, and for ever." That is, the doctriie of Jesus 
Christ will always remain unchanged. This is the 
interpretation of Dr. Clarke, and Whitby as well as 
of Le Clerc, Calvin, archbishop Newcomj, and other 
trinitarians.* It is not uncommon in tie scriptures 
for the name Christ to be put for the doctrine, or 
religion, of Christ. Acts v. 42. "They ceased not to 
teach and preach Jesus Christ," that is, the doctrine 
of Christ. Eph. iv. £0. "Ye have not so karned 
Christ," that is, his doctrine. 

Kev. i. I?. "I am the first and the last." W ho 
eve* it was, that spoke these words, it certainly could 
not be the ever living God, for in the very next verse 

* "The evangelical doctrine, as delivered by Christ and his apos- 
tles." See Newcome's note in the Improved Vers. Eadem ilia doc- 
trim, &c. Hammond Adnot. edit. Clerici. 



be continues to say, "I am he that liveth, and was 
dead" For any being to be called the first and the 
last, therefore, does not necessarily imply, that he is 
God. Rev. xxiL 13. "I am Alpha and Omega, the 
beginning and the end, the first and the last" It 
is inferred from this text, that the person speaking 
could be no other than God. But look back in the 
same chapter to the ninth verse, and you will find the 
messenger, who spoke these words, rebuking John 
for "falling down to worship before his feet," and say- 
ing to him, "see that thou do it not; for I am thy fel- 
low servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of 
them which keep the sayings of this book; worship 
Goi." Could this be the eternal God, who told John, 
that he was his fellow servant, and who refused to re- 
ceive vrorship from him? We hence see, that these epi- 
thets, 01 titles, if they are to be applied to Christ, so far 
from proving him to be God, were actually given to a 
person, o* being, who had died, who declared him- 
self to be 4 fellow servant with John, and who would 
not suffer himself to be worshipped. What precise 
meaning u to be taken from the phrases Mpha and 
Omega, tht first and the last, it is not necessary for our 
present purpose to inquire, since the context proves, that 
they canrbt afford even a shadow of evidence in favour 
of the upreme divinity of Christ. As it is impossible 
they should denote the one true God, since God can* 
iU die, it seems most rational to consider them as re- 
lating to the christian dispensation. Of this dispen- 
sation, Christ was the first and the last; it was begun 
and finished by him; it was entirely his work. 

Another argument for the supreme divinity of Christ, 
trinitarians find in certain texts of scripture, in which 



250 



they say lie is made the the object of worship. The 
strength of this argument rests on the scriptural mean- 
ing of the word worship, and of those terms and phrases 
in which worship is supposed to be implied. If this 
same word, and these same terms are applied to other 
persons besides Christ, then the application of them to 
him can be no proof of his being (rod. A little exami- 
nation will show this to be the fact. And it is believed, 
that in every text in which it is thought worship or 
honour is rendered to Christ, a proper understanding 
of the context will convince any fair mind, that the 
person writing, or speaking, did not consider himself 
addressing Christ as God. 

When we remember, also, how explicit our Lord 
was in his directions about worshipping the Ffther, 
and him only, we ought to be very cautious low we 
allow ourselves to violate his express command, and 
ascribe to any other being that reverence, ^nd those 
honours, which belong to the Father alone. He was 
positive in his commands to his followers that they 
should worship the Father; he always worshipped the 
Father, nor has he in a single instance intmated, that 
divine worship is to be rendered to himsef* or to the 
Holy Spirit. And if we allow him to be theangel, men- 
tioned in Revelations, conversing with JohL he there 
not only renews his command to " worship GoV' but 
implies in strong language, that he himself is not*o be 
worshipped. Now since every text of scripture w!l 
admit of a natural and fair explanation, on the prin 
ciple of rendering divine worship to the Father only, 
is it not much more consistent with just rules of inter- 
pretation, thus to explain them, than to press them 
into the support of a doctrine totally at variance with 



251 



one of the plainest and most positive injunctions of 
our Saviour? If we worship Christ, we do not wor- 
ship the Father only; and if we do not worship the 
Father only, we violate a command of the gospel. 

The word worship does not always signify religi- 
ous reverence, but sometimes civil homage or respect. 
"The king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and wor- 
shipped Daniel. 99 Dan. ii. 46. And all the congre- 
gation bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord 
and the king." 1 Chron. xxix. 20. "And so it was, 
when he came to David, that he fell on the earth, and 
did obeisance," (worshipped him.) 2 Samuel i. 2. "And 
all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, 
bowtd and reverenced (worshipped) Haman; butMor- 
decai Sowed not, nor did him reverence," (nor worship- 
ped him.) Esther iii. 2. The servant, in the parable 
of the talents, is represented as having worshipped his 
master. Matt, xviii. 26. "As Peter was coming in, 
Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet, and wor- 
shipped him." Acts x. 25. Examples of a similar 
kind are exceedingly numerous in the old Testament. 
From these it appears, that kings, and other men in 
eminent stations, were worshipped. It follows, that 
the same kind of reverence shown to Christ, is not a 
proof of his having been God.* 

*T'aeword rendered worship is «r£««xc/»««. It occurs nearly 
two hundred times in the septuagint version of the Old Testament, 
and is sometimes translated worship, at others reverence, and 
obeisance, but most commonly to bow down. Wl^en the sons of 
the prophets came out to meet Elisha, "they bowed themselves 
to the ground before him," literally, they worshipped him on the 
ground. 2 Kings ii. 16. The word derives its signification from 
the eastern custom of prostration in token of submission to a sove- 



252 

It is said of Christ, Matt. viii. 2y "There came a 
leper and worshipped him," literally, bowed down 
before him, or, according to the custom of the coun- 
try, showed him a peculiar mark of reverence and re- 
spect, as Cornelius afterwards showed to Peter. The 
same may be said "of a certain ruler who came and 
worshipped him. ix. 18. After he had walked on the 
sea and stilled the winds, "they that were in the ship 
eame and worshipped him," but not as God, for they 
immediately after say, "Of a truth thou art the Son 
of God," xiv. 33. They manifested towards him that 
reverence and submission, which, as the messenger of 
God, he ought to receive. 

Certain passages of scripture are supposed by aome 
to afford an evidence, that prayers were offered to 
Christ, because mention is made in them of calling on 
his name. But this is an erroneous interpretation of 
the phrase. Calling on the name of the Lord Jesus 
does not signify the act of addressing him with pray- 
ers or supplications. Acts ii. SI. " Whosoever shall 
call on the name of the Lord shall be sav^d." Now 
whether this text refers to God, or to the Lord Jesus, 
it is evident that it cannot allude to the simple exer- 
cise of prayer or worship, because no one can suppose, 
that by this alone salvation can be procured. Calling 
on the name of the Lord must mean, in this place, a 
sincere discharge of every religious duty, for such 
only is the condition of salvation. Any person who 

reign or prince. It came at length to denote a mode of salutation 
or of showing respect to a superior, and in this sense is very com- 
monly used in the New Testament. We can determine when it 
means religious adoration, only from the connexion in which it is 

used* 



253 



embraces and obeys the religion of Christ, is one, who, 
in the scripture sense of the phrase, calls on his name. 
Acts ix. 14. "And here he hath authority from the 
chief priests to bind all that call on thy name;" that 
is, all that have embraced thy religion, and become 
thy followers, xxii. 16. "And now, why tarriest thou? 
arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, call- 
ing on the name of the Lord;" that is, receiving the 
truths, and obeying the commands of the christian re- 
ligion. Paul writes to the Corinthians, and to "all 
that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ 
our Lord." 1 Cor. i. 2. This address was made to 
all, who had become christian converts.* 

Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11. "Wherefore, God also hath high- 
ly exalted him, and given him a name, which is above 
every name; that at (in) the name of Jesus every knee 
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, 
and things under the earth, and that every tongue 
should conf ess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory 
of God the Father." 

The meaning of this passage is very clear. It is 
expressive of the exaltation of Jesus, and of the ex- 
tent and authority of his religion. Every knee is to 
bow, or God Is to be worshipped, in his name; that is, 
in conformity with the spirit and rules of his religion. 
All intelligent beings are finally to become the true 

* Wakefield observes, that "this is in very many instances a 
Hebrew phrase for a religious man — one, who acknowledges the 
being and providence of God— one dedicated to his service."' See 
Wakefield on Actsii. 21. Hinc factum est, ut farmula esr/xscAe/ev 
6ctt ovopccc mo$ sig;nificaret in universum, profiteri religionein 
alicujus. Schleus. in voc. emy.*?.. 

34 



354 



worshippers of God through the religion of Jesus 
Christ. This religion, also, is to have a universal 
prevalence, and all nations will ultimately confess, 
that Jesus was a divine messenger, and glorify God 
for his goodness in sending him into the world em- 
powered with so high a commission. No text is more 
explicit than this, in expressing the superiority of God 
the Father to Christ. However highly Christ is ex- 
alted, we are told it is God, who has exalted him. 

John v. 22, 23. "The Father judgetb no man, but 
hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men 
should honour the Son, even as they honour the Fa- 
ther. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not 
the Father, who hath sent him." 

That this text should be brought forward to prove, 
that we are to worship Christ as God, or to honour 
one in an equal degree with the other, is certainly 
somewhat surprising. In the first place it is said, the 
"Father hath committed all judgment to the Son;" and 
next, that "he hath sent him," both of which declara- 
tions show, as clearly as can be shown, t|iat they are 
distinct beings, and that one derives hii power and 
authority from the other. The text itself, therefore, 
points out the impropriety of honouring oie in an equal 
degree with the other. We should honour God, as the 
Supreme Being, and the author of our religious pri- 
vileges; and we should honour Christ, as the messen- 
ger, whom he has dignified with the high commission 
of revealing the divine will to man, and of becoming, 
by his doctrines and example, the Saviour of the world. 
Any disrespect to the authority of Christ, is a disre- 
spect to God, from whom he received his commission 
and power. Instead of affording any argument for the 



255 



supreme worship of Christ, this text contains an im- 
plied injunction to the contrary.* 

There are some passages in which glory, thanks, 
and gratitude are rendered to Christ. 2 Peter iii. 18. 
"To him be glory both now and for ever." 1 Tim. 
i. i2. "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath en- 
abled me, for that he, counted me faithful, putting me 
into the ministry." All christians, unitarians as well 
as trinitarians, will undoubtedly unite in the senti- 
ments contained in these and other similar texts. All 
will be ready to render glory, and honour, and thanks- 
giving, and gratitude to him, who has been so highly 
exalted of God, who was empowered from heaven to 
worii miracles, and publish a new and divine religion 
to the world, who lived a life of privation and suffer- 
ing, and at length submitted to an ignominious death, 
for the present happiness and eternal salvation of men, 
— all christians will revere the dignity of his charac- 
ter, acknowledge the perfection of his doctrines and 
example, yield a willing and cheerful obedience to his 
authority, and feel the warmest gratitude for his bene- 
volent exertions, and affectionate solicitude in behalf 
of the wholt human race. But every one should be 
cautious, how he renders to Christ those honours, and 
those ascriptions of praise and thanksgiving, which 
belong to the Father only. There can be but one su- 
preme object of spiritual worship, or of religious ho- 

* The meaning of the text is much impaired by a wrong trans- 
lation of a single word. Instead of rendering x«0»?, even as, it 
should be since, or seeing. Vid. Schleus. Also Macknight's Pre- 
lim. Essays. Es. 4. No. 203. There is a similar example in Eph. 
i. 3. "Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heaven- 
ly places in Christ, (*«0<y?) since, seeing, lie hath chosen us," 8oc. 



25Q 



mage, and that is God. He is the Being, whom our 
Saviour worshipped, and commanded his followers to 
worship. To him all honour, and glory, and praise 
are due, and when we ascribe these to any other be- 
ing, except in a limited degree, how can it be said, 
that we are the true worshippers, who worship the 
Father? Or how can it be said, that we "worship 
the Lord our God, and him only?"* 

1 John v. 7. "For there are three that bear record 
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; 
and these three are one. And there are three that 
bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the 
blood; and these three agree in oue." 

This text has been so often, and so thoroughly exa- 
mined, and the words in italics so universally reject- 
ed, that I should not think it a proper use of time to 
say a word on the subject, did I not know it still to 
be quoted, as a portion of the true scriptures, both by 
preachers of the episcopal and other churches. I can 
give only a short sketch of the reasons, which prove 
it not to have been written by the apostle. 

In the first place, it merits our attention, that the sense 
of the passage is not injured by leaving this verse out. 
On the contrary, it is rather improved. The connex- 
ion is closer without it. The witnesses mentioned in 
this verse had not been introduced before, but the wa- 
ter, blood, and spirit, mentioned in the sixth verse, 
are brought forward in such a manner in the eighty 
as plainly to indicate, that the seventh has been in- 
serted between them. 

* For a comprehensive view of the nature and object of religious 
worship, see a sermon by the Rev. Robert Aspland, entitled, 
A Vindication of Unitarian Worship, Londou, 1810. 



257 



The text in question has never been found in any 
Greek manuscript, which was written earlier than four- 
teen hundred years after Christ. It is contained in 
no Latin manuscript, which was written before the 
ninth century. It is not contained in any of the an- 
cient manuscripts of the eastern languages. 

It was never quoted by the Greek fathers iu their 
controversies on the trinity. A stronger proof than 
this cannot possibly be advanced, that they had no 
knowledge of such a text. They often cited the verse 
preceding, and the verse following, to prove the divi- 
nity of the Son; but this verse, which is much more to 
the point, they never adduced. Neither was it quot- 
ed by the early Latin fathers. In many editions of 
the Bible, after the reformation, it was either omitted, 
or inclosed in brackets, to show that it was doubtful. 
It was omitted in Luther's German version, and mark- 
ed as doubtful in the early editions of the English 
Bible.* 

Many of the ablest trinitarian critics of the last and 
present age, have rejected this text as spurious. Bi- 
hop Lowt b, in a letter to Michaelis, says, "We have 
4ome wranglers in theology, sworn to follow their 
master, wh o are prepared to defend any thing, however 
absurd, fshould there be occasion. But I believe there 
is no one among us, in the least degree conversant 
with sacred criticism, and having the use of his un- 

* ln the old English Bibles of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. the 
words of this text were either printed in smaller letters, or enclos- 
ed in a parenthesis. The same was observed in queen Elizabeth's 
Bible of 1566; but shortly after, the words began to be printed 
without any mark to distinguish them from other parts of the Bi- 
ble. See Commentaries and Essays, published by the Society for 
promoting the Knowledge of the Scriptures, vol i. p. 144, 



258 



demanding, who would be willing to contend for the 
genuineness of this verse.* 

Archbishop Newcome has left it out of his transla- 
tion. 

The bishop of Lincoln says, "that after an atten- 
tive consideration of the controversy relative to this 
passage, I am convinced that it is spurious."f 

Dr. Jortiu expresses himself as follows; "This text 
of the three heavenly witnesses keeps its place in our 
Bibles, in bold defiance to the fullest and clearest evi- 
dence against it." 

Dr. Doddridge enclosed the passage in brackets-, 
and expressed his doubts as to its being genuine. 

A trinitarian writer in the Eclectic Review, hi an 
article written professedly against unitarians, says, 
after some remarks on this text, "Under these circum- 
stances, we are unspeakably ashamed, that any mo- 
dern divine should have fought, pedibus et ungui- 
bus, for the retention of a passage so indisputably 
spurious. We could adduce half a dozen, or half a 
score passages of ample length, supported by better 
authority than this, but which are rejected in every 
printed edition and translation."} 

After a most critical examination of the whole sub- 
ject, Griesbach rejected the text as totally indefensi- 
ble.* 

*See a part of the original letter in the Christian Disciple, vol. 
L p. 109. quoted from Michaelis's Literary Correspondence, part 

2. p. 428. 

t Elements of Christian Theology, vol ii. p. 90. Note. 
i See Christian Disciple, vol. i. p. 109. Eclectic Review for 
March, 1809. 

§ Ego quidem, si tanti esset, sexcentas lectiones ab omnibus 



25 » 



Bishop Middleton and Mr. Wardlaw consider it 
spurious. 

Such are the opinions of a number of the most learn- 
ed trinitarians. Many more might be quoted. Travis 
wrote largely in defence of the text, but was answer- 
ed in such a manner by Porson, and bishop Marsh, 
that no one, especially since the investigations of 
Griesbach, will probably be inclined to revive the 
controversy.* 

Sir Isaac Newton, also, wrote a treatise against 
the genuineness of this verse, in two letters to Le 
Olerc, which are said to be "written with force, can- 

rejectas atque futilissimas defendere possem, testimoniis et rati- 
onibus seque multis atque validis, imo pluribus plerumque atque 
validioribus, quam sunt ea quibus utuntur hujus dicti patroni. 
Diatrib. in loc. 1 Iohan. v. 7. p. 25. 

* It is not to be denied, that bishop Seabury, in his charge 
delivered in Derby, Connecticut, September 1786, declared the 
genuineness of this text to be "incontestably established by the 
Rev. Mr. Travis.*' p. 10. But it would seem, by the proceedings 
of the first American convention, that the bishop's authority, in 
the affairs of church government at least, was not treated with 
the most profound respect. 

In the critical notes to the Greek and English Testament, pub- 
lished by Roberts, 1729, after examining the evidence in relation 
to this text, the editor observes, "If this evidence is not sufficient 
to prove, that the controverted text in St. John is spurious; by 
what evidence can it be proved, that any text in St. John is ge- 
nuine?" 

Dr. Wall, in his Critical Notes on the Greek Testament, pub- 
lished 1730, has the following remark on John v. 7. "This verse is 
in no Greek manuscript, nor was in the Bibles of ancient christi- 
ans, nor ever made use of by them in their disputes with the Ari 
ans. Mill has so defended it, that he, who thought it genuine 
before, will now conclude it to have been interpolated by some 
Latin scribe first." Comment, and Essays, p, 145. 



260 



dour, and perspicuity." They were published after 
his death in Horsley's edition of his works.* 

Even Beza and Calvin did not allow, that this text 
affords any argument for the trinity. According to 
these writers, it is not a unity of number, which is 
here spoken of, but a unity of testimony. Calvin says, 
it is a unity of agreement, and not of essence; that is, 
these three witnesses are one, in the same sense, as 
the water, blood, and spirit are one. They all agree 
in one testimony.! 

All the persons, whom I have mentioned as reject- 
ing this text, except Sir Isaac Newton, were trinitari- 
ans; and since such is the overwhelming evidence of 
its being spurious, it seems truly incredible, that any 
preacher should be found at the present day, so re- 
gardless of his reputation for scholarship, for candour, 
and for honesty, as publicly to quote and urge this text 
to an uuinformed audience, as of equal authority with 
the rest of the scriptures. The only plea, which such 
a person can make, that ought to have any claims on 
our charity, is ignorance. But this is a plea to which 
few, who make any pretensions to theological attain- 
ments, can resort. It must, indeed, be a cause of se- 
rious regret to every friend of pure religion, that any 
one can make it with sincerity. But it is still more to 
be lamented by all such, as wish for the success of re- 
ligious truth., that any teachers of the gospel should 

* Butler's Horse Bibiicae, p. 378. Newton's Works, vol. v — 
These Letters were printed separately in London, 1754. A 
copy of this edition is in the library of Harvard University. 

t Ita prorsus consentiunt ac si unus testis essent. Beza. — Quod 
dicit, tres esse unuin, ad essentiam non refertur, sed ad consen- 
sual potius. Calvin. See Macknight, vol. vi. p. 109. 



&6i 



knowingly and wilfully be the means of disseminating, 
error, and of imposing on the ignorance and credulity 
of the multitude, by repeating to them as the record 
of divine truth, what has been most undeniably prov- 
ed to be an unwarrantable fabrication of men. 

Matt, xxviii. 19. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in (into) the name of the Fa- 
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

The word name, by a Hebrew idiom, is often redun- 
dant. The phrases name of God, name of the Lord, 
frequently express nothing more than God, and Lord. 
The Psalmist says, "I will praise the name of God 
with a song;" that is, "I will praise God with a song." 
Ps. Ixix. 30. "The name of the Lord is a strong 
tower." Prov. xviii. 10. "Blessed be the name of 
God for ever and ever." Dan. ii. 20. "I will cut 
off the name of the Chemarims." Zeph. i. 4. In all 
these examples, the word name is redundant, and 
might be omitted without affecting the sense. 

In other cases the name of any person signifies the 
authority, or doctrine of that person. "I am come in 
my father's name," John v. 43; that is, by the autho- 
rity of my Father. "In the name of Jesus Christ, rise 
up and walk," Acts iii. 6; that is, by the authority 
of Jesus Christ. "By what power or name have ye 
done this?" iv. 7, or, "by what power or authority 
have ye done this?" St. Paul says, "I verily thought 
with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary 
to the name of Jesus of Nazareth," xxvi. 9; that is, 
contrary to the authority or doctrine of Jesus of Na- 
zareth. "In his name (authority, or doctrine) shall the 
Gentiles trust." Matt. xii. 21. 

85 



262 

It hence follows, that being "baptized into the name" 
of any person, is the same as beiug baptized into the 
doctrine of that person, or into the person himself; 
and to be baptized into the name of a thing, is the 
same as being baptized into the thing itself. This is 
consistent with what is stated in other places. "For 
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, 
have put on Christ." Gal. iii. 37- "Know ye not, that 
so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, 
were baptized into his death?" Rom. vi. 3. "They 
were all baptized unto f into J Moses in the cloud/'* 
1 Cor. x. 2. 

From these passages we must be convinced, that no 
argument can be derived from the text under consid- 
eration, in support of the doctrine of a trinity of per- 
sons in the godhead. To be baptized into the name 
of the Holy Spirit, does not imply, that this spirit is 
a person, any more than that death is a person, for the 
same reason. And if to be baptized into Christ be a 
proof, that he is equal with God, you may infer the 
same of Moses. 

"To be baptized into the name of any person," says 
Schleusner, "signifies to profess, by the rite of baptism, 
a determination to be devoted to his doctrines, his au- 
thority and his institutions." They, who "were bap- 
tized into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea," were 
such as professed to be his followers and yield to his 
authority. To be baptized into Christ, is to express 
an acknowledgment of his authority, and a resolution 
to obey his commands, and copy his example. When 
Paul expressed his fears, "lest any should say, that 
he had baptized in his own name," his meaning was, 
that none whom he baptized should consider them- 



368 

selves his disciples, but practical believers of the re- 
ligion of Christ. 

In other words, to be baptized into any person, or 
thing, is to make a public profession of faith in that 
person, or thing. Faith is the first requisite of a reli- 
gious life. We cannot obey, till we believe; and if 
our faith be rational and sincere, we shall scarcely be 
wanting in obedience. One implies the other; so that 
to acknowledge a sincere faith in the christian reli- 
gion, by the ceremony of baptism, is the same, as re- 
solving to give heed to its injunctions, and confide in 
its promises. 

Baptism was designed as a rite of initiation into 
the christian church. To be baptized into the name of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was to express a 
belief that God was the original author of the chris- 
tian religion; that Christ was empowered by divine 
aid to publish it to the world; and that the influence 
of the Holy Spirit, or a divine agency, was manifest 
in the miraculous powers and gifts, w inch were exer- 
cised, both by our saviour and his disciples.* It is 
easy to perceive for what reason this form of baptism 
was instituted. It comprises the three principal sub- 
jects of christian faith. Whoever professes a sincere 
aud rational belief in these, can give no firmer indica- 
tion, as far as faith goes, that he is a christian. There 
was a special, as well as a general reason, why the 
Holy Spirit should be connected with the other two. 
The enemies of Jesus, and of his religion, imputed 
the miracles, which he wrought, to a diabolical agen- 
cy, and said, "he casteth out demons by the prince of 

* Baptismus datur in nomen t«v axoretXccvTos n«r^<>$, r«v 
tXCovrcf Xptc-rov t Tov nagrvfrjcafTos vr<t£ct.K*iiTtv. Clement. Vid. 
Besonmul. Vol. I. p. 575, 



264 



demons." It was important, that such impression! 
should be done away as speedily and effectually as 
possible, and that his works should be referred to their 
true source, the power and influence of God. This 
end could easily he accomplished, by making it a part 
of the baptismal ceremony to acknowledge the ope- 
ration of the Holy Spirit, or the immediate agency of 
God, in confirming the truths of the gospel.* This is 
rendered the more probable, from the circumstance of 
there being no instance on record in which the whole 
form was used. Those persons, who had seen such 
wonderful effects of the Spirit, as to render it impossi- 
ble for them to doubt of their triie cause, were for this 
reason, perhaps, not baptized in the name of the Spirit. 
Whether this conjecture be correct or not, it is certaiu 
the apostles did not consider this form as absolutely 
essential, since it was not always, if ever, employed 
by them. 

There is nothing, therefore, in the form itself, nor 
in the practice of the apostles, which can induce us 
to think, that because the Son and Spirit are men- 
tioned in this connexion, we are to take them to be 
equal to the Father. If so important a doctrine were 
to be inculcated in this form of baptism, it certainly 
would not have been so uniformly omitted by the 
apostles. It is, also, to be noticed, that in the verse 
immediately preceding, Christ says, "All power is 
given unto me in heaven, and in earth." If he were 
God, it could never be said, that all his power was 
given to him; and this acknowledgment of his depen- 
dence, in immediate connexion with the form of bap- 

* Marsonrs Sermon on the Impersonality of the Holy Ghost, 

third edition, London,, 1812, p. 38. 



265 



Usui, is another and an unanswerable proof, that no 
such doctrine can be deduced from it, as his equality 
with the Father. 

2 Cor. xiii. 14. "The grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the 
Holy Spirit, be with you all." 

Many of the epistles of St. Paul are begun and 
ended with devout wishes, similar to those here ex- 
pressed. Some have, in these, discovered traces of 
religious worship offered to three beings, and have 
hence inferred the doctrine of the trinity. But such 
inferences will hardly stand the test of examination. 

The grace, or which is the same thing, the favou r 
of Christ, means the gospel of Christ, or all the bles 
sings, privileges, consolations, and hopes, which are 
enjoyed through this gospel. We are especially in- 
debted for these to the grace, or favour of Christ, be- 
cause it was from the purest motives of benevolence 
and good will, that he suffered so much for the benefit 
and happiness of men. The apostle expresses a de 
sire that these blessings, of which, we have been made 
partakers through Christ, may abound to the Corin - 
thians to whom he is writing; and, also, that they ntay 
be favoured with the love, or approbation of God. 

By "the communion of the Holy Spirit," is meant 
a participation of the gifts, powers, or influences, which 
go under its name. In writing to the Philippians, 
St. Paul speaks of "their fellowship (communion, or 
participation) in the gospel," and of their "fellowship 
of the Spirit."* What can be meant here, but a joint 

* The word *o/»«»i*is translated promiscuously fellowship, com- 

munion, participation) but the last seems to be preferable. 

Schleusner in vGc. Yates's Vindication, p. 171. 



366 



participation of the blessings of the gospel, and of 
spiritual gifts? If you make the Holy Spirit a per- 
son, what idea can you attach to the apostle's language? 
How could the Corinthians join in the participation of 
a person? We may commune or participate with, but 
not of a person, and it is to be kept in mind, that there 
is no such expression in scripture, as communion with 
the Holy Spirit. The language of the text itself, 
therefore, renders it certain, that by the Holy Spirit 
in this place, cannot be understood a person, or being, 
much less the supreme God. The words of the apos- 
tle imply nothing more, than a benevolent wish, that 
to the Corinthians might abound the blessings confer- 
red by the gospel of Christ, the love or favour of God, 
and the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit.— 
All other texts of this description will be found to re- 
quire a similar explanation. 

I have thus examined some of the principal passages 
of scripture, which are usually quoted in support of 
the trinity. Others may have been omitted, which 
are thought important, but my limits have allowed me 
to select only the most prominent. I cannot refrain 
from repeating a fact, at which I have before hinted, 
that every text, which I have examined, has been in- 
terpreted, by some one or more of the ablest trinitarian 
critics, in a manner perfectly consistent with the unita- 
rian exposition. This fact should teach some persons 
to urge with more gentleness the charge, which is often 
brought against unitarians, of attempting to put a forced 
construction on such texts of scripture, as do not seem 
at first to harmonize with their sentiments. The 
meaning of some of the most difficult passages is to be 
settled by fair and patient criticism, in which learning, 



267 



judgment, and candour, are the only guides that can 
be trusted. These may be exercised by persons of 
one religious denomination, as well as of another; and 
we show but little regard for the cause of truth, when 
we suffer our prejudices, and zeal for a party, to blind 
our eyes to the light, which the judicious inquiries of 
learned men, whatever may have been their private 
opinions, have thrownupon the scriptures. By neglect- 
ing to be informed, and refusing to inquire, we not 
only manifest a love of ignorance, but a fear, that our 
faith is of too flimsy a texture to bear a close exami- 
nation. 

If we place any value in religious attainments, in a 
knowledge of God and of our duty, we shall eagerly 
seize upon every means in our power, to come at the 
revealed truths of scripture. Truth in religion, as in 
every thing else, is known by its simplicity; error in- 
volves in us perplexities, fills us with doubt, and leaves 
us in despair. Truth is luminous; it sends forth a 
steady light. Error is dark, and spreads darkness 
around it. Truth is the guide to virtue; it is attended 
with harmony and peace. Error opens a broad way 
to vice, and draws the heedless and unsuspecting into 
its snares. We should remember, nevertheless, that; 
opinions are important, as far as they influence the 
conduct, and no farther. A correct faith will make 
no amends for a bad life. Faith is not religion, any 
more than opinions are actions. To be religious 
we must have faith; to act rightly, we must think 
rightly; and yet, we may have faith and no religion, 
as we may think and never act. 

This truth is of great practical importance. It will 
cause us to exercise forbearance and a good temper to 



268 



wards those with whom we do not, agree in religious 
opinions. While there is such a variety of character- 
istic features in the minds, constitutional tempera- 
ments, dispositions, associated impressions, and early 
habits of men; w r hile there are such various degrees of 
knowledge, mental light, and strength of understand- 
ing, it is not possible, that all men should think alike. 
Nor is it necessary they should. It is not required of 
us, that we never be in error, but that we use our best 
endeavours to avoid it. Our duty is discharged when 
we have done this, and it is our misfortune, and not 
our fault, if we still remain in the dark. All this may 
be granted, without affording any possible excuse for 
not keeping up the temper, the dispositions, the feel- 
ings, and practice of christians. There is no occasion 
for difference here, but our own perverseness, cher- 
ished ill nature, and evil passions. If we have any 
regard for the example of our Saviour, and the noble 
virtue of charity, which he enjoined, we shall soon 
learn to subdue these, to lay aside our narrow preju- 
dices, to disdain the invidious distinctions of names 
and sects, to brush away the films through which we 
can see the errors and faults, but not the virtues of 
our fellowmen; we shall learn, that all men are in the 
hands of God, that in the concerns of religion, all have 
equal privileges and freedom, and are entitled to equal 
claims on our candour, affection, tenderness, and chris^. 
tian love. 



THE END". 



ERRATA. 



For "conclusive," page 10, line 6, read "exclusive"— for "either," p. 57, 1. 27, 
read "other"— p. 76,1. 10, before "sacrifice" insert "last" — line at bottom, for 
"adopt," read "adapt"— for "possess," p. 95, 1. 25, read "profess"— for "se- 
venth," p. 135, L 6, read "seventeenth"— p. 150, 1. 12, omit, "and essential"— 
for "in," p,158, 1. 25, read "into" — for "sseculi," p. 247, line at bottom, read 
"seculi," 



6 8 7 



ST*' ^ 



! 



-7^ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper procfl 





Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologM 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVA'^B 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry' Township, PA 1 6066 I 
(724) 779-21 11 1 



-x > , 



1 ^ 



.0 



*0 O 



o 



1 1.< J 



v0 o 




